HR Specialist Small agency Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:06 AM
I get really tired of people complaining about how much time smokers take for their breaks and how smokers are lazy and poor performers. If that is the case, as identified by "supervisor with the Navy in Silverdale, WA," than take a personnel action against them! If they aren't performing, put them on a PIP and get them to perform. If they are taking unsanctioned breaks, then charge them with AWOL. My experience has been that some of my BEST performers have been smokers.
And let me warn you nonsmokers who complain about these breaks---as an ex-smoker, if I didn't get a cigarette when I needed one, everyone around me paid for it. So, be careful what you wish for!
Re: Try being accountable...
USDA HR Specialist Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:25 AM
I get really tired of "smokers" complaining about their rights. Non-smokers have rights, too, to include not being subjected to second hand smoke. It's really pathetic when I have to walk through a cloud of nasty cigarette smoke to get into the building every morning because the inconsiderate smokers hover around the building trying to stay warm. Take your nasty habit somewhere else.
Re: Try being accountable...
Paralegal USAF Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:41 AM
Its not about being accountable - its about running a business. You want to smoke - go ahead and smoke, get your fix, so you can be "personable", so you can "concentrate" but why should you get paid for all the time your away smoking. So smoke all you want - but do it off the clock! If your there for 8 hours you should only get paid for 6.
Re: Try being accountable...
Specialist Federal Agency Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:40 AM
Paralegal, and you get paid 8 hours for sitting at your desk? You never go to the bathroom? To the soda machine? To your co-workers cubies? Before casting stones, think about your day and if you ever take breaks.
USDA, HR Specialist, take your pathetic self to a different door! Oh, and if you took a bath in your perfume or cologne today, stay away from people - they don't want to smell it. And, if you crack your gum when you chew, you annoy me. Maybe gum chewing should be banned next...
Re: Try being accountable...
Analyst COE Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:47 AM
Specialist from Federal Agency says to go to another door. Where I work there is only one door in, due to security, so it would be pretty difficult to go to another door to get in.
Re: Try being accountable...
Me The one I work for Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:09 AM
Oh, now I like the ban on gum chewing thing. GUHHH, the sound of people smacking their gum is WORSE to me than nails to a chalk board. And since we're banning things, how about popcorn chomping? I have a co-worker that spends the better part of an hour loudly chewing her popcorn every morning. If not for headphones, I'd get absolutely NO work done that hour I'd be so distracted and irritated!
Next ban up for bid...mouth breathers.
Making the world tolerable through intolerance. One annoying habit at a time. HA!
SMOKE BREAKS -- BOOZE BREAKS?
Technical Analyst DCMA Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:20 AM
Well, if smokers need a "break" because they are stressed, how about those who like a visit with "Doctor Jack" when they are stressed? Can they go out and get a shot, too? Also, among annoying habits, how about those windbags that come up in a nearby cubicle and hold a loud, distracting, and extended gab-fest just when I'm trying to compose a complicated report? I was once hooked on smoking, but I realized it was killing me and opted to continue breathing instead of smoking in late 2005.
Ban all of it
Appraiser HUD Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:31 AM
If a functional alcoholic wanted to take 5 minutes to run down the street and have a shot, he would be put on administrative leave and sent to rehab.
Regardless of whether or not it has any impact on performance, why should one addiction be given preferential treatment over another, or over those who have no addiction whatsoever?
Smoking Ban
Mister DCMA Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:31 AM
I work in a facility where smoking is banned. I have read numereous complaints from others that a smoker gets more breaks than non-smokers. This issue is easily solved by restricting smoking to authorized break times and at lunch. Management places controls on the employees when smoke breaks are authorized and not the employees. Non smokers life isn't fair and smokers you have the right to destroy your health when at home not during duty time. Managers wake up and take control. This is an easy situation to control.
Smokers - Bad for Business
Paralegal USAF Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:33 AM
All the comments about smoker rights, is B.S., so is giving them there own little special place to smoke. Here is what it comes down to. Smokers spend more time on breaks then employees that do not smoke. So if you smoke - you should get paid for a 6 hour day instead of an 8 hour day and you should lose your lunch break. No matter what agency you work for - it is still a business, if you are not working, you should not get paid. Its that simple.
Re: Smokers - Bad for Business
Specialist Federal Agency Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:42 AM
Where are the statistics to back this statement up? I highly doubt that smokers spend anymore time on breaks than non-smokers do chit chatting with their friends at work on government phones or on their personal cell phones.
Re: Smokers - Bad for Business
Rural Development Specialist USDA Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:23 AM
I just don't get it, smokers take smoke break and non smokers take chat breaks? Last time I looked the smokers also spent time chit chatting and on the phone too so add that to the 15 or 20 minutes to smoke breaks 5 times a day. There is no comparison. Now, I don't care if someone wants to smoke and goes out but let me have a break too. Yes, smokers go to the bathroom, eat snacks, take lunch breaks too so don't hand me the issue that non smokers use as much time as smokers during the paid work day. It just does not wash. However, smokers should have a place to go, just move away from vents and doors, that's all I ask.
Secondhand Smoke
IT Specialist HHS Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:35 AM
Most people don't know that there is no Constitutional right to smoke. The government should not spend any taxpayer funds to enable smoking. Workers and the public should be protected from secondhand smoke at all entrances. Smokers should also pay a higher fee for their health insurance. Currently, their unhealthful habits are being subsidized by non-smoking employees and all taxpayers. Their secondhand smoke causes non-smokers to incur diseases, illness, and lost workdays.
Smoking ban at the workplace
Analyst USGS Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:36 AM
It should be banned completely. I see many employees who are smokers constantly converging outside taking long 'smoking breaks' and many breaks throughout a workday. They spend more time smoking (more like endorsed socializing) than they do working and the supervisors turn a blind eye to it. It's unfair to have the taxpayers pay for lack of productivity.
Give me a break
Front Line Manager FAA Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:37 AM
The air we breathe is toxic from the fireplaces, vehicles, etc. The smokers are going to make a diference in the big scheme of things. I agree with the obesity issue because they think they get longer coming back from breaks because they walk slower....Give me a break!
HR Specialist (reply #1)
IT Type Defense Agency Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:37 AM
Quote, "And let me warn you nonsmokers who complain about these breaks---as an ex-smoker, if I didn't get a cigarette when I needed one, everyone around me paid for it. So, be careful what you wish for!"
That comment spoke volumes to me about the "me first" attitude of our society as a whole and smokers in particular. It's not enough non-smokers have to dodge a gauntlet of smokers on the way into buildings, nor is it enough smokers show disdain for what is and isn't an approved smoking are. Now we'll have an attitude of, "since I can't have my smoke break, I'll make everyone around me miserable."
How sad!
Re: HR Specialist (reply #1)
Clerk DOI Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:36 PM
There's a cure for "nicotine fits" - it's called suspension.
Smoking Ban
Supervisor DOD Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:41 AM
The comments about banning obese people if you ban smoking, is a bit ridiculous. What, do you want people to get yearly physicals to show that their smoking, weight, etc is not contributing to health problems? I will have some smokers who are in good health and some obese people who have overall better health than a thinner person.
I am considered overweight; but my BP is 125/69, sugar, cholesterol, and all other bloodwork is great. I exercise, do yoga, eat fish 2-3 times a week, chicken(very rarely), no red meat, and go on a week cruise every year to unwind from the hectic work schedule I have. It's not just one specific thing that causes the health problems, it's the unhealthly lifestyles people have.
Let smokers be aware of where they smoke in public places,respect non-smokers who can be highly allergic to tobacco products. Let the non-smokers hold their breath and comments as they walk by a cloud of smoke (if they have to do so to get where they are going).
Re: Smoking Ban
Analyst DOD Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:40 AM
Supervisor DOD and I bet you never take breaks either.
Re: Smoking Ban
Editor DoD Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:30 PM
Well said, DoD Supervisor - I get sick and tired of smokers being compared to those of us who are overweight - no one seems to take into consideration family history or slow metabolisms - we're all just worthless slobs to some people. At least I know that the result of my less than perfect diet won't potentially kill those around me!
SMOKERS
HOUSEKEEPER VA Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:43 AM
I'm a smoker, and I'll admit it's addictive. But come on we're already outside. I'll bet most people offended drink coffee. Try quitting coffee for one day let alone quit!!
Re: SMOKERS
VA Admin Support Assistant Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:36 AM
It's not about quitting - it's about respecting others. There is no designated smoking area at the VA where I work and cigarette butts are all over the campus - to include the outside eating area. I can't go anywhere to get AWAY from the smoke. A really horrible site for a health care facility. Smoke, smoke, smoke yourself to death, but not at other's expense.
Smoking Ban
Analyst VA Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:45 AM
Looks like most comments were one sided. Smokers do have rights too. They should also get extra paid sick days for going outside in all weather "unprotected" to smoke. I don't even smoke in my own home because I have animals but I am still a smoker who has rights too.
Re: Smoking Ban
VA Admin Support Assistant Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:41 AM
Extra paid sick leave to support a stinky habit you CHOSE on your own? Pleeeeze, take responsibility for your own actions instead of wanting a hand out from the Government.
Re: Smoking Ban
IT Specialist HHS Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:40 AM
Smoking should be banned. There is NO right to smoke! It is NOT a protected right.
Re: Smoking Ban
Accounting Tech NFC Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:00 AM
It is commendable to hear you don't force your smoking on your pets but to not do so I bet you also step outside your front door "in all kinds of weather" to indulge your habit. Why should you have anything extra at work for indulging in your habit of choice? That means your non-smoking coworkers have the same right as do your pets! I also agree..."smokers have rights, too"...and they should have an enclosed area far from the rest of us where they can indulge their habits by containing their tobacco smoke and their tobacco butts, etc. However, they should indulge their habit OFF THE CLOCK instead of getting PAID time off to induge in a habit of choice.
Smoke Breaks, Health, Smokers' Rights and Festerin
Project Manager HUD Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:46 AM
There is a bible verse which goes something like quick to find the the splinter in the neighbor's eye while ignoring the tree in one's own eye. The folks who are accusing smokers of taking extra breaks, should ge to work early enough to see the non-smokers who come in at 6:30 the go to breakfast from 6:45 - 7:30 or 7:45, then consistently take 60 - 90 minutes for lunch EVERY day! When the "supervisor" does nothing about it! We are authorized two fifteen minute breaks - one morning and afternoon. Mine are typically less than 10.
I am aware that not all folks smoke, and quite frankly there are times when I do not like the smell myself. So I am quick to excuse myself away from you who do not partake.
Take care of yourself and your house and I will take care of me and mine.,
Smoke Breaks
Program Analyst Department of Homeland Security Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:48 AM
If smokers use their 2-15 minute breaks (in addition to lunch) to go smoke, that's their prerogative. However, they shouldn't be afforded any extra breaks just because they are smokers. Every employee should have the exact same number of breaks - smokers and non-smokers. All the other comments about walking through the smoke outside are just petty gripes.
Re: Smoke Breaks
peon DOD Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:40 AM
"All the other comments about walking through the smoke outside are just petty gripes." Or maybe just that we'd like to be able to breath. Smoke can be deadly for asthmatics. Are we supposed to work at home (doing what? stuffing envelopes for minimum wage?) to avoid all smoke? Why can't management enforce the installation RULE that there is to be no smoking within a certain distance of the door? Especially when mgmt are not smokers themselves - they are cowed by smokers.
Tobacco Chewer
VA Lab Tech Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:49 AM
Don't blow smoke on me and I won't spit on you.
Re: Tobacco Chewer
Prof Small College Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:39 PM
If you spit upon me rest assured that you will not spit again until all dental procedures are finished.
Re: Tobacco Chewer
Clerk DOI Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:44 PM
Dear Small Prof:
I'm shaking in my boots.......probably because I'm laughing so hard.
Re: Tobacco Chewer
Clerk DOI Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:46 PM
You do raise a good point, VA Lab Tech. Smokeless tobacco should be included in any tobacco ban.
Smoking Ban
Biologist Dept. of Defense Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:51 AM
I am in total favor of a complete smoking ban. I quit 30 years ago and have not looked back. About ten years ago I submitted a proposal to our Squadron Commander whereby employess that did not smoke would be given an extra 15 minutes on each side of the lunch hour for health breaks. I calculated the average time that person who smokes goes outside to imbinbe and it is easily 15 minutes each hour in some cases and longer in others. That is about two hours before and after lunch that is wasted. I use my lunch hour for exercising and even 30 minutes would make the whole process more enjoyable. It was not even given a fair hearing. The contention that smokers have any rights that are different from non smokers is ludicrous. If I got up and walked around for 15 minutes each hour my boss would have a cow and would probably make a stink about it but let a co-worker go out to smoke and nothing is said.
Re: Smoking Ban
Nameless, Faceless Nobody DOD Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:16 AM
(Amused) I DID take 10 minute "walk breaks" every hour & a Half for about 6 months when I was having trouble controlling my blood sugars. I had other health issues so couldn't take any long walks anywhere with uneven terrain, so I walked around the building twice or thrice every hour & 1/2. You know who complained??? Smokers. Fortunately my commander had a sense of perspective.
Re: Smoking Ban
Analyst Designated Smoking Area Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:53 PM
Amazing a former smoker is in favor of forcing his opinion on others! I know smoking is bad for my health, and I will quit just as soon as I am ready. However, cigarettes are legal, so if I choose to partake, that is my perogative. I 100% agree that there should be enforced designated times and locations. However, I don't support a law making you eat only healthy foods during your lunch and breaks, so let me smoke on mine! I agree that smokers should pay more for health insurance than non-smokers ... but so should obese people ... and families with 10 kids should pay a lot more for health insurance than a family of 2....
Smoker's rights
Supervisor VA Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:52 AM
When I walk by an obese individual I never recall coughing or having a sore throat later or the effects of the individuals obesity affecting my health! HMMMMM!
Smoking Breaks Survey
Procurement Analyst DOJ/U.S. Marshals Service Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:57 AM
I'm in agreement with those comments for the ban of smoking in and outside buildings. Why should the federal government subsidize someone's addiction by permitting them extra time for their breaks or space in which to practice their addiction. If anything the government should be more accommodating to assist employees becoming more healthy, which will have benefits in all aspects of work and home life.
smoking
IT Spc IRS Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:58 AM
Why just ban smoking in the workplace? Why not ban it on federal property altogether? And stop bringing up "smokers rights" in response! In the workplace our rights are limited. After all, it's illegal to keep an open bottle of booze in your desk, and don't alcoholics have rights?
dont forget the history folks
it speclst nps Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:59 AM
ouch! such vast negativity! i smoked for over 20 years, quit for 5, went back for 6 mo and then quit for good. if this country hadn't been heavily pro-smoking for decades we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. Ok, so now public buildings you can't smoke in - they now leave it to the casinos in which my husband works and couldn't quit for good because he's bombarded by it tho he did give it a very good try. All us ex-smokers are usually major naysayers but you have to remember many people just can't quit without a great deal of help and won't unless they really want to in the first place. The tobacco companies really did their job well by creating an incredibly addictive product. We need to help people quit instead of berating them all the time. I support a ban in general but you have to create a positive environment, not a negative one.
Smokers and Breaks
Retired Manager VA Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:08 AM
Smokers should be allowed to smoke in designated areas or outside as long as they do so in their regularly allowed break or lunch period. No extra time should be allowed to smoke or for any other personal activity during workhours. This includes non emergency personal calls, or personal visits to others in the work areas. The resentment caused by extra breaks is not limited only to smoke breaks.
Re: Smokers and Breaks
VA Admin Support Assistant Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:30 AM
Designated areas indeed. I had a supervisor who would light up as soon as she exited the building and smoked all the way across campus to the main building. She took her "stroll" multiple times a day and got away with it, but yet if anyone arrived five minutes late to work in the morning, she made them take 15 minutes of AL. What a hypocrit.
Smoking Rules
Secretary US Fish & Wildlife Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:11 AM
I have to say I resent the smokers in my office. Besides all the time they send smoking it also becomes a talk session for 15 minutes or more. Some people make up their own rules. Come in late, go out to smoke/talk every hour, take no lunch and then leave early. Is that fair for the rest of us that come in on time, take the required 30 minute lunch by law and leave at the proper time??
The question is, why be a good employee?
Re: Smoking Rules
Specialist Federal Agency Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:47 AM
And you are saying smokers are bad employees? Too funny that you are judging smokers as bad employees for smoking. Maybe in my eyes you are a bad employee too...
Re: Smoking Rules
Accounting Tech NFC Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:14 AM
Hey, Specialist....I suggest you check out and use your vision insurance if by 'in my eyes' you can't see Secretary is refering to those smokers who take UNAUTHORIZED leave time to indulge their habit of choice! IF a smoker takes scheduled breaks then he/she should go for it but in a designated smoking area!
Tobacco smoke, obesity, perfume
engineer Army Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:12 AM
Second hand smoke is almost a deadly as first hand, and I should be protected from it.
Perfume/cologne/"fragrance" is not only an irritant but a allergen, and often a potent. As such it is a health hazard to many people, and they too should be protected from others who can be detected beyond hugging distance.
Food, however, is a necessity, unlike tobacco or perfume. As such, obesity falls into a different category. While obesity should be discouraged, and treated if necessary, it has far deeper roots, some of which are evolutionary. It's just not in the same category, and putting it in the same category as smoking or perfume use is merely a red herring.
Re: Tobacco smoke, obesity, perfume
Aircraft Modifications Manager USAF Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:31 AM
I am an ex-smoker, added in my desire and ability to quit by the inconvenience of having to go outside to smoke (it still took 2 years and a lot of will power). A side affect of quitting has been gaining an incredibly hightened sence of smell. I now have a co-worker on the other side of the cubicle wall that is very quiet but I can always tell when he comes back to his desk because the rancid smell of cigerette smkoe that clings to him.
When people wear too much perfume, I can explain to them that it's over the top and they generally cut way back, but smokers have to know they stink and they figure it's their right to smoke so we non-smokers just have to live with it.
If smokers don't care about their health or the concideration of non-smokers, maybe they should concider their vanity as a reason to quit.
Re: Tobacco smoke, obesity, perfume
Nameless, Faceless Nobody DOD Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:21 AM
Well said.
In many of the offices I have worked, heavily scented hand lotions, perfumes, etc, would call for a quiet request from the boss. We had several people who were allergic and the gal who had lovely, scented, reed-diffusers on her desk needed to graciously accept that she couldn' have them or she would injure her coworker's health.
This actually led to her starting to understand that smoke she brought back in with her caused the same woman to have severe asthma attacks. She hasn't quite stopped smoking but is far more courteous about it.
I think that is the source of the backlash...incredible discourtesy by smokers and their "rights" for so many years have caused the many more non-smokers to demand that the smoker rights stop at their lungs...period.
Smoking
Accountant DFAS - Retired Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:13 AM
Prior to quiting in 1988, I smoked or used two packs a day, thus the ash tray on my desk to full or overflowing and I had a private office. Requiring a smoke to leave the work area or the building is a waste of time since most smokers use the mid morning break to smoke.
Smoke Breaks
Administrative Support Assistant HUD Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:31 AM
If a person chooses to smoke I think it is their right. I also believe that I have the right not to inhale their smoke; however, there are far too many people who take advantage of their smoking priviledges by taking far too many an too long "breaks" to go smoke. It has been my experience that no manager (and I have worked under several in my 20 year career) will take action against them; yet, on the very few occasions that I do take a break it is frowned upon by management. I'm expected to be at my desk to cover the phones and the front door because that is my job, but my present coworker (who has the same job description) is not because "she smokes". I have worked with smokers who have not abused their smoking priviledges and it can be accomplished. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions.
Smoking Band
Chief, Training Plans & Resources Dept of AF Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:34 AM
I do not smoke, but I am an American combat Vet seeing wars from Viet Nam to Iraq. I fought for our freedom & have lost many frends, yet self-rigthous do-gooders demand taking away a smokers freedom too. How much more do we Americans have to surrender. Can't there be peace and let each enjoy there freedoms & happiness without madness and oppression? Enough already! We are our bothers keepers & need to help each other. Surly there are neutral grounds that all can be satisfied without unnecessary controls and demands over another person's life and their right to live. Working towards peace is more serving to society than anger, jelousy and hate. Don't take away individual rights or freedoms! Too many paid the ultimate price with there life for us to be free and have the right to choose.
Re: Smoking Band
Aircraft Modifications Manager USAF Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:40 AM
Get real. Nobody's saying smokers can smoke. If they want to smoke go right ahead just not around people who also have the right to breath clean air. And before you go there, factories that polute are also serving a productive function in society and they have restrictions to the amount and places they can spew their polutants. I am also a veteran and I fought for freedoms, rights, and the pursuit of happiness. Not having to deal with the sthench and unhealthy affects of cigarette smoke makes me happy!
Re: Smoking Band
IT Specialist HHS Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:49 AM
Smoking is NOT working toward peace. Smoking kills, injures, and causes more disease than wars. There is NO right to smoke and it should be banned to protect those who value their health. The Government should not be in the business of protecting deadly habits, such as smoking.
smoking ban
Claims Examiner DOL/ESA Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:56 AM
I don't mind if the people in my building smoke in designated areas outside the building. I do mind the following, and will therefore be happy with the total ban:
1) The fact that people ALWAYS smoke outside the designated area so that smoke often drifts into the building lobby. What about "non-smoking area" do you not understand?
2) The cigarette butts that are all over the property, lining the cracks between the pavers on the new plaza. It looks terrible.
Re: smoking ban
Another Claims Examiner DOL Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:47 AM
Why is it that it is not OK to throw trash in the street or on the sidewalk but OK to throw cigarette butts? I used to be in an organization that adopted a street for cleanup and most of the trash was cigarette butts. Persons who throw butts in the street or on the sidewalk should be fined and/or required to do community service cleaning the streets.
Smokers should incur add'l health insurance fees
Management Analyst U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:57 AM
Since we've determined that smokers and even people exposed to second hand smoke develop lung cancer, it seems only fair that smokers be required to pay an additional health premium. This would cover their claims for lung disease and extended health problems while other co-workers end up covering for them. I hate getting on an elevator with someone who has just come in from smoking. The rules should be enforced by supervisors that smokers get only two 15- minute breaks (one in the AM and on in th e PM). Let the Surgeon General weigh in on this matter and go from there!
Smoking
Helium Payment Technician BLM Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:06 AM
I do not smoke and have never smoked, but I do have other vises that I use for stress. I believe that smokers should have a place to go to smoke because I do think they need a stress release also. I think smokers should be restricted to only one break in the morning and one in the afternoon just like everyone else.
Smoking in the work place
Chief Warrant Officer US Army, retired Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:09 AM
During my 36 years of service I saw the change from smoking at your desk to "designated areas". Going outside was inconvinent, it took "time" to walk to the break area, so be it!
The professed Health Nuts (military and civilian) still came to work and spread their hacking flu, some spent HOURS in the lunch room with their friends and griped about the lack of promotions and their bosses.
We often had to work 12+ on and -12 off (for months). As a supervisor I was aware of the productivity, stress and responsibilities of those that worked with me. Overall, we got the job done, the slackers were pretty much ignored...we really did not need them anyway. My regret is that we were unable to boot them then, as it appears the now are deciding the fate of the worker bees.
Our new Commander in Chief will sure find it tough to comply with GSA on this one! Light'em if you gott'em!!
Smoking Breaks
Supervisor DoD Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:11 AM
Smoking break abuses are NOT a smoking issue! They are a personnel issue that should be dealt with by the employee's supervisor. Taking excessive breaks is a punishable offence, whether the individual is smoking or not! Why blame smokers for management's inability (or lack of backbone) to deal with the offending employee? Why ban smoking (partially) because managers will not manage? Totally banning smoking can only increase the amount of time an employee is away from their desk! Employees taking excessive breaks will still have to be dealt with!
Smoking
Computer Programmer SSA Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:19 AM
I just lost a friend who died of lung cancer. He hadn't smoked in 27 years. But, every Friday night he spent 3-4 hours in the confines of a club basement with someone who was a chain smoker. Second-hand smoke seems just as bad as smoking.
smoker breaks
assiatant module manager social security adm Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:22 AM
Why don't the union & management allow the smokers to clock out, go smoke, and clock back in when they are ready to go to work. This will not give the smokers the extra benefit of smoke breaks and it would not take away from their right to smoke & read their books & read the newspapers & visit other parts of the building to see their friends & have another smoke. The smokers would now be doing their smoking on their own time and, when they clock back in they'll be ready to work. Some smokers would then be at work for 10 -12 hours because of their smoking, but that was their own choice.
smoking and breaks in general
retired maintenance leader WL11 NYARNG Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:26 AM
One looks for employment, to be paid for the work he or she performs. For us, the rules were simple to understand. Our 8 hour day was divided into two four hour work periiods. Each work period was divided into two parts by a break of 15 minutes and the time for that break was up to the supervision of that facility. Yes there were smokers that took advantage. Smokers were given a 5 minute smoke break every hour which was supposed to be in lue of their regular break. Of course some abided by that rule and some didn't. Some took their regular break along with their smoke break. Others who didn't smoke took up smoking, others would just stand in smoking areas with a cigaret. At times there were more smoking than those who were working.
The rules are black and white, no argument as how or what they mean. How they ae applied is left to the local supervisor. What is lacking is supervision at all levels, and a lot of self respect at the employee level.
Just back...
Specialist Federal Agency Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:57 AM
from my smoke break which took no more than 3 minutes.
This issue has been beaten to death with all the blame placed on incompetent, lazy smokers. While some may be incompetent and lazy, I know for a fact that there are just as many incompetent and lazy non-smokers out there too. Just take a look around you on a given day you will see people chatting with each other, talking on the telephone, surfing the internet, or just plain wasting time. Maybe the issue is the government has way too many employees and there is not enough work to keep everyone busy.
You know the old saying about glass houses...
Look at yourself in the mirror before casting stones and be sure that you are 100% ethical in everything you do at work.
Smoking
Quality Assurance Specialist DCMA Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:44 PM
I smoked 3 packs a day until 1993. I watched the sniveling whineybutts constantly crying "just give them their own smoking place where we won't have to smell it". Well , you got what you wanted....from the workspace...to the break room....out of doors....designated smoking areas outside....designated smoking areas away from main thouroughfares....and your still sniveling, whining, and crying because somebody does something you disagree with. Got an idea for you.....this is America, the land of the free....freedom means that I have to listen and read some of the most inane, stupid, comments ever assembled in one place....the idea...go where you'll be appreciated for being against freedom....even when that freedom will eventually contribute to your demise. I'll continue to give you the freedom to whine if you'll give the smokers the freedom to kill themselves. Freedom sometimes means allowing someone to practice something you don't agree with. Quit whining and find a way to do your job..
Ban the Smoking!
Instructro DHR- Schofield Barracks Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:51 PM
One worker at my office who reeks from the smell of tobbacco will come into my area and long after he leaves, the unpleasant odor of his visit lingers. It's absolutely horrible!
Aloha from Hawaii
Re: Ban the Smoking!
Prof Small College Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:44 PM
I loath the cheap perfume many federal employees use. It stinks and causes my nose to drip. Why should I have to smell you? What about the ripe ones that do not wash?
Re: Ban the Smoking!
Former HR Specialist Federal Agency Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:12 PM
Prof -- Small College,
These rules don't apply to you. So why do you bother giving your opinion, and why should we pay attention to what you think?
Smoke Breaks
Civil Rights Investigator U.S. Dept of Ed Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:56 PM
When I was with the FDA, I was forced by my supervisor to train an employee who kept leaving the work site to take multiple 30-minute smoking breaks. This employee, Deborah Kleinfeld, was hired by the FDA after she claimed that she couldn't get promoted at IHS because she wasn't Indian.
Antismoking Hypocricy
EE Spawar Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:57 PM
As a nonsmoker, I see nothing wrong with allowing people to have smoke breaks. If it seems that they take too long, remember to include the time they take to get to the smoker's area and maybe a restroom stop. In the meantime, what about all of us taking the time to read through the Fedsmith articles AND the reader's comments. At last count, THIS article has five pages of comments.
Smoke Breaks, Health, Smokers' Rights and Festerin
Loan Specialist HUD Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:19 PM
Beyond the obvious loss in productivity, increased sick time and overall cost to the US Taxpayer, I totally agree with a complete ban on smoking.
When my smoking co-workers come back from their frequent unmonitored breaks, their clothing and breath stinks of cigarettes. Their odor permeates the entire workplace. These carcinogens are now entering into my lungs as 2nd hand smoke.
I have a guy at my job who has eleven children. He is on food stamps and other benefits from New York State. He is always complaining about never having any $$ yet I always see a cigarette in his mouth. Smoking effects many more individuals beyond the specific smoker.
You want to stop smoking on a macro federal level? No smoking breaks at all and raise their monthly medical benefit costs to 25x that of a non-smoker.
Smoking in the workplace
IRS Agent & Steward IRS Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:33 PM
Everyone agrees that smoking should not be allowed inside the building (& maybe even outside the front door). The worst negotiations I had in 25 years of being a steward was when we first had to negotiate a separate smoking room (with smokeeater) , then do away with it when Clinton banned it. I have never seen such venom in the office-both directions-and so little willingness to compromise in not letting smokers get pelted with verbal abuse (some wanted to use real rocks). It's kind of like watching a dog fight (I imagine) where the contest has to result in a total kill. I'm glad I'm retiring next week. I have no faith in mankind.
Re: Smoking in the workplace
Retiree DoD Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 PM
When discussions on designated smoking areas first began, our activity designated a room equipped with a smoke eater and a door that could be closed, with the thought that non-smokers would not be subjected to smoke. The smokers would open the door and the air in the hallway would be blue with smoke and filter into the offices. When the smokers were asked why they opened the door, they whined that they did it because the smoke bothered them! Moving smoking areas outside resolved that particular issue, but opened up a new can of worms with the excessive breaks. If hospitals and schools can ban smoking on their grounds and the state of Delaware can be non-smoking (including the casinos) surely the Federal government can figure out a way to do this. Don't even begin to tell me that a smoke break is necessary to handle the pressures of the job. My husband is a former 3-pack a day smoker who kicked the habit 13 years ago and was still able to function in the workplace!
SMOKING VS OBESITY--COME ON!
SCARED VA Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:18 PM
I fail to see the correlation between smoking and obesity as they affect those around us. My being fat doesn't have the effect on those around me like smoking would.
In one sense, though, I see what they are saying. I, too, am against goverment intervention in one's own health care. However, when it comes to smoking, it does have an ill effect on those around you. Fat doesn't seep from one person to another!
smoking
DRO (retired) VA Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:41 PM
What smokers do not want to admit is that their habit hurts the health and welfare of non-smokers, not just themselves. We would not allow someone to shoot a gun at people just because he has the right to own a gun, so we shoul not allow people to smoke anywhere that smoke might be breathed by someone else.
Re: smoking
CIC USAF DOD Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:23 AM
My car throws out more pollutants than a smoker blowing it right into your face. Where do you people work where you walk through a cloud of smoke to get into the door?
Equating guns to smoking is about as asinine as equating your flatulence to global warming
Addictions impact upon the workspace
Retired DOD Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:34 PM
So the smokers hung out front of the Thurman Building while the non-smokers hung out at each other's cubicles smearing themselves with perfume and griping about their lousy jobs.
I am allergic to both, as were many other people in Southern Command, but the smokers were removed from my required space and the perfumes were not.
The best way to survive is to smear the back of your hands with Vick's Vapo Rub and try to keep your air passages clear. Then everybody can gripe about the smell of Vick's.
Private industry requires you to stay put, smell clean, no smoke, no perfume.
Get over it, being a federal employee does not bestow special rights.
non-smoking areas
Analyst COE Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:43 AM
Our building has "no smoking" signs posted around the entrances, yet smokers stand in front of the signs and smoke, and nobody enforces the policy. They even stand inside the revolving doors to smoke. As someone else mentioned, perfume is just as bad and should also be banned as it causes health problems for those that are allergic and sensitive.
smoking ban
nurse va Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:03 AM
Smokers need to be responsible about where they drop their butts and smoking in only designated areas. I am a smoker and adhere to the rules at my agency, 25 feet from any doorway and to use butt cans. I understand how non-smokers or reformed smokers feel, we are allowed to go outside on our breaks and lunchtime to smoke, don't you get breaks and lunches? What's your problem?
Smoke Breaks
Retired Labor Relations Spec Agriculture Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:31 AM
The biggest complaints are about the amount of time wasted by smokers. At my former agency that was a concern, so I did a small study; The people who complain the loudest about the time wasted are, by and large, more wastreful with their time. They "visit" with other employees; they spend inordinate amounts of time in the ladies and men's rooms; they spend agreat deal of time on personal phone calls, whether on a cell phone in the hallway or bathroom, or on their Govt phone. In the end , it about evens out, altho there are always the abusers. That's where good management comes in...... They can curb abuses by all.
Smoker's Rights
Accountant USDA Forest Service Fri Dec 26, 2008 7:30 PM
I smoked many years ago so empathize with smokers. I don't want to inhale the smoke so am grateful that they take it outside. The few seconds I have to hold my breath walking past the smoker's area is a small price to pay for clean air at my desk.
Yes, they take a lot of time away from their desks but so do so many "talkers" in the office who stand around the first hour of every day catching up on office gossip or chatting on the telephone repeatedly throughout the day. Bottom line, supervisors need to ensure that ALL employees are contributing their fair share of the workload (no small task) rather than singling out only one section of the problem. No smokers should not be banned from smoking in areas outside Federal buildings.
Smoking Ban
Traffic Management Specialist USAF Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:14 PM
I did not smoke until I was sent to Vietnam in 1970. The GOVERNMENT gave me cigarettes to smoke in our rations packs.
I have no problem with not smoking in buildings or any type.
Home, public, government.
I smoke outside at all three. I don't blow smoke in peoples faces, I will even move downwind from someone so the smoke doesn't blow on them.
I know smoking is bad. It is an addiction. As stated before it was a habit the GOVERNMENT gave me and got me started on.
Leave me alone. Or pay all costs for me to stop and pay for any medical problems that the GOVERNMENT caused me to have. And I'm not talking about the insurance that I have to pay for regardless of the GOVERNMENT claims they pay for.
PROUD VIETNAM VET. 1969-1971.
Smokers
Smoking Western Area Power Administration Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:33 PM
I am a former smoker who still gets upset when others decide that the smoker is a bad guy. Maybe instead of complaining we need to try and help them quit. Let's take the high road instead of the low one. Everyone just ends up angry and nothing is accomplished by judging another's habits.
Of course, I do remember others suggesting I needed to quit and all it accomplished was making me think of all the things I could've suggested to them to quit. Just because someone doesn't smoke doesn't mean they are a more dedicated worker. Let us continue to move forward with our ability to think positive. From the comments I read I could feel the anger.
I wish for all smokers to someday find the way they need to quit. Nagging and telling them they have to quit will accomplish nothing but frustration and resentment. Agencies have figured out a lot tougher problems. Let's put on those thinking caps.
Just don't bother me!
Former HR Specialist Federal Agency Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:28 PM
As long as I can do my work without having to breath in someone's smoke, I'm good. I have numerous lung ailments, so when I had to work next to someone smoking, I was often out sick. However, now that they don't bother me at my desk, I try not to bother them at their designated smoking areas. Why can't we just leave it like that?
I don't feel like entering into a debate about health care costs, or what they are doing to themselves. As long as they aren't doing it to me, who cares? I have gone over two years since I have taken any Sick Leave for reasons other than doctor visits. I'm relatively healthy. That's the important thing.
SMOKING BAN AT WORKPLACE
F/A DHUD Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:55 PM
there should be designated smoking areas. most complaints i hear are from ex-smokers. there are non-smokers that stay on the phone all day, except for breaks, talking to family and friends ,while others are trying to work, this is stressful. employees that stands in the isles talking/ laughing loud, while others are still trying to work, this is stressful. employees that takes long lunch breaks, shopping. nothing is said; no leave slips submitted, this is stressful. the all day coffee drinkers with the coffee breath, the tobacco chewing employees, with tobacoo breath, the popping of gum all day, the hair sprayers, the loud music, talk shows and yes, the smokers with the smoking breath, these are all stressful. i want neither in my face, but we must work together for a common cause. it is not up to me to take their habits away. there is no way to please all, just bare with it. your own habits may send people running, screaming in search of shot of liquor or a smoke, ok
Ban on Smoking
Mgmt Analyst DoD Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:51 PM
I smoked for years, and after 3 attempts, have managed to stay smoke free. I am not one of those born again non-smokers and I think that smokers are being discriminated against and for all the whiners out there that complain about smokers getting too many breaks, oh my gosh - get a life! Are you at your desk when your duty hours begin? Do you stay on the phone or in the hallways taling for extended amounts of time? Get over it, find a different entrance to walk thru and move along!
Smoking law
Me The one I work for Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:46 AM
I really have no sympathy for smokers. I don't care what laws are passed one way or the other, but I do hate having to pass by these people and their toxic emissions. Yes, I have to breathe in toxins all day from other sources, but if one can be reduced or eliminated, I'm all for it.
However, saying that if you ban smoking you should ban obesity, is preposterous! Obese people (usually) don't take a break every hour to go eat...and they're not standing there shoving their food down other people's throats, and they don't need special places to go eat, etc. etc. This is an apples to oranges comparison. The only similarity is the health issue. (No, I'm not obese.)
I'll smile happily if they ban smoking...at least until I have to work with a smoking boss who becomes a total bear to work with because s/he is going through withdrawals. But then, instead of blaming the law, I'll blame my stupid boss for not quitting.
Re: Smoking law
Analyst DOD Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:05 AM
You are right, obese people (usually) don't take a break every hour to go eat...and they're not standing there shoving their food down other people's throats. They are constantly eating and talking, with their mouths full of food, in your face.
Re: Smoking law
Rural Development Specialist USDA Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:20 AM
Really analyst, your attitude towards overweight/obese people is so antiquated. Not sure where your experience comes from but I do hope no one in your family ever gains a pound, they would have your wrath to deal with.
I know more overweight/obese people that are super performers, go over and above to get the job done well. This is both in private sector and fed employees. And they do not stuff their faces and talk with their mouths full in anyone's faces. (I know *normal sized* people that do that)
Breaks
Accountant usace finance center Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:59 AM
There is more nonsmokers stand around talking in the office, and on the phones using more time then most smokers do taking their smoke breaks. Being a nonsmoker I see this.
Smokers
Consumer Safety Inspector FSIS Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:09 AM
Let's get real. I see alot of comments stating that smokers should be docked hours when they go out to have an occasional smoke. If that is the case for all you non-smokers, everyones hours should be docked for all the time spent during our coffee breaks, bathroom breaks, personal phone calls, surfing the web and even for the time spent typing comments in FedSmith. I do not know one person who spents their 8 hours on the clock actually working the total 8 hours. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone.
smoke breaks
Secretary Dept. of Homeland Security Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:37 AM
I am a smoker, I come in 45 minutes early and start work. I go out for a cigarette 2Xs a day. Each break lasts 7 minutes (I time myself). I stay away from the door area and stand closer to the street. I don't like the smell of anothers cigarette and I cannot blame a non smoker for not wanting it in their face and in their space. Smokers need to be more considerate of others. Would you like to smell wood burning? To non smokers, the smoke could feel like something burning in their nose, it could cause an asthma attack and it makes their clothes smell as bad as ours. Be considerate and if you need to break for a cigarette, come in early and make up the time so you are not "stealing" time from the government and having the non smokers feel like you are getting extra breaks. Limit yourself - you don't need a cigarette every hour.
Banning Smoking
Editor DoD Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:41 AM
Why is there so much pettiness in the workplace. We should be grateful that we have jobs, period. It is always about "me. I don't get the same breaks." Oh please! Smokers didn't think "Oh I will smoke so I can have a more breaks than the other workers." We are selfish enough without worrying what the other person is getting away with. And, NO, I am not a smoker or ever was one. Be happy that we have a Federal job where we have a lot of benefits.
Smoking
Offer Investigator IRS Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:46 AM
As your sample of comments about smoking demonstrates, these non-smokers are similar to zealots. There is no way but thier way, an listening is not in thier skill set. Try standing on the corner of an intersection. You will get more polution there in 5 minutes than any other place you can think of. Of course auto polution is socialy acceptable.
Smogs
Mr. Patriot Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:28 AM
The "G" should not tolerate any extra breaks for smoking other than the ones already established for each respective Agency. As a former smoker it's real tough to quit. The "G" should consider offering smoking cessation programs for those who want it and when the employee’s insurance doesn‘t cover it. For those that want to smoke that is your right but you should not be entitled to get extra "G" time to do it. Smoke on your scheduled break. As well, non-smokers should not have to be subjected to the second-hand smoke. As much as I enjoyed a smog they’re real bad as we all know. There should be designated smoking areas for now. I flew through Japan this year and in their airport there was a room set aside with a strong ventilation system and NORAD type doors for smokers. You could not smell any smoke leakage even when people were going in and out.
Stop Your Whining
HR Specialist Cabinet Department Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:39 AM
Smoking is bad for your health, your family's health, innocent bystanders' health, even out of doors. You can't bring alcohol into a Federal building, why should you be able to smoke? Agencies should offer free smoking cessation programs. Smokers should either take advantage and quit, or put up with the hardship of going outdoors in the cold and rain, with only the same breaks available to non-smokers. And no complaining on government time. Or to me, I don't want to hear it. I once smoked and quit, you can, and should, too.
Smoke Breaks, Health,...
Program Support Assistant VA Medical Center, Dayton OHIO Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:34 AM
Nothing wrong with moving smokers out of federal buildings. Smokers do take more "breaks" than non-somkers and that is unfair. Have them clock in and out when they leave their work areas for non-work and charge them leave if their time is more than their allotted break time. If they do not have the leave, monetary compensation to the employer is always an opiton. When it starts negatively affecting their pockets, they might be willing to reconsider where and how often they need to feed their habits.
Re: Smoke Breaks, Health,...
Operations Specialist Federal Reserve Bank Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:07 PM
Smoker or not, last time I checked, the law LEGALLY mandated that employees take their mandated breaks. Studies showed that rather than slowing things down, breaks BOOST people's energy, concentration, mood and production. If you are not taking your legally mandated breaks, you are ultimately breaking the law, and if human resources noticed it, you would probably get forced to take breaks...
Don't discriminate against a smoker!
Claims Representative SSA Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:58 AM
I do not agree that smokers are poor performers. I smoke and am a hard worker and do not take extra breaks every chance I get to get my fix! I am entitled to one morning break, 1/2 lunch, and one break in the afternoon. That is when I smoke not any more not any less! I'm offended that people will say that I'm lazy, poor performer, not concerned of others, when not everyone is that way; I'm not. I do not smoke around people who are non-smokers, if they choose to stand by me, that's on them. I do not smoke in doorways or entrances, I tend to think of others who do not smoke, but as another person put it, what I do with my body and health is my business. I do not judge others who may drink on or on the job, (discreetley or on lunch breaks), over eat on the job, (have piles of food in their drawer, desk, etc.), or complain of strong body orders that I have to put up with because I work with someone who doens't have good hygene. I don't complain on people's bad habits!
Upgrade ventilation systems in the offices
Computer Specialist DOD USMC MCTSSA Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:54 AM
I am not a smoker, but do not wish to control co-workers.
Improve the ventilation systems in the offices where the smoking takes place.
Until "smoking" is illegal and banned from the market, this is a right for people who wish to smoke.
PROTECT OUR RIGHTS!
Smoking in the Work Place
Security Specialist TACOM Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:16 PM
It wouldn't bother me a bit if all public places and public access were completely off limits to smoking. In a free society, the majority rules. 67% to 33% is a majority. Places I like to enjoy, having a beverage at a pub, restaurant, bowling, casinos are all fun places to go. But the smoke is just beyond the enjoyment. And my clothes stink and must be changed as soon as I can. Is this a free society? Yeah, I have the choice to stay home, but is that what businesses want? Come on smokers, if you can't quit and you know you want to, then at least cut back to 2 15 minute breaks a day and smoke in your car. Hopefully you are not smoking in your homes with kids around.
Banning Smoking in the workplace
Office Manager National Labor Relations Board Judges Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:38 PM
As an asthmatic it is like being punched in the lungs to walk through a cloud of smoke in front of the doors but usually avoid it. All of our smokers have quit since smoking in public places has been banned in California and the smokers had to go outside and away from the building. I greatly appreciate that the ban has helped and encouraged so many to quit smoking. There are patches that can be used when smoke breaks are unfeasable or limited to regular break times. Smokers are entitled to extra breaks in any of the Regulations that I have read so why are they getting them?
Re: Banning Smoking in the workplace
Customer Rep US Forest Service Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:53 AM
I am sorry about the asthma but that isn't the fault of the smokers. I have medical issues and it isn't anyone else's fault. I also smoke and I have that right just like the obese people have rights to stay obese if they want and have health issues, just like the drinkers who go out after work for a brew or two and just like the diabetics who need insulin at work.
We are all human and we all have rights. I won't take away yours so don't take away mine. If smokers are getting more time in smoking then that is their supervisors fault for letting them. I only take my normal breaks and I do smoke less, but at least I'm able to if I want to.
I hate the overbearing smell of some perfumes and colognes but can't say anything because it is offensive and they have rights. I also can't say anything to the obese people who smell or the ones who don't shower daily and smell horrid, I can't offend them because it's their rights. Geesh people get a grip. Leave smokers alone. I leave you alon
Smoking/Tabacco Use
Specialist USDA Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:33 AM
Let's cover the entire issue -- What about "tobacco" use? It is disgusting when they come into your workspace area, and you have to smell/breathe in the cigarette smoke that has settled in their hair and clothing. It is suffocating. It is even more disgusting when you walk into areas within the office and find cups or bottles with spit from chewing tobacco; or when you enter the kitchen area and find that they have spit their tobacco in the sink. It (smoking and non-smoking tobacco) should be banned from within, and within a certain area outside of, the workspace. What's sad is that the ban is not going to work if it is not enforced and adhered too by the supervisors and the rest of those up-the-ladder. Tobacco users seem to get more privileges than non-tobacco users; i.e., allowed to chew tobacco within the office; allowed to use tobacco in the GSA (Government issued) vehicles; and if you are a smoker you are not questioned when you take 4 or 5 breaks a day to smoke. As one gentlemen put it, “if you want to reach me call my cell phone, you won’t be able to reach me on my desk phone, I’ll be outside polluting my lungs.” I write this as I sit at my desk with two smokers just outside my window.
SMOKING
Industrial Specialist NAWCADLKE Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:08 AM
Instead of torturing smokers who have an addiction to a substance authorized, and subsidized by tax dollars wouldn't it be prudent to ban tobacco production and sales therby reducing tax subsidies and the need for all these riduculous laws??
Get Real!
Specialist Department of Veterans Affairs Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:41 AM
I will be sitting in my car smoking on my well-deserved breaks and just try and stop me!
What about all the fatty's who overuse their break time grazing on food in the break room? No body stops them from their self-destructive behavior.
I do not smoke in front of the buildings and I am respectful of others plus I barely use my whole break so back off!
So you are going to ban smoking at the VA? What about the Veterans????? What a slap in their face
Re: Get Real!
Rural Development Specialist USDA Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:52 AM
Hey VA Specialist, You had better get real. those *fattys* often perform better than the smokers. I see both smokers and non smokers of all sizes eating during the day and not just lunch. Maybe your family and friends ought to take another look at your attitude. After all, if they are overweight maybe they don't know that you secretly loathe them. The last basttion of discrimination is with overweight people. Oh, by the way, alcoholics can recover and stop drinking alcohol, smokers can stop smoking and never have to smoke again but I have yet to meet anyone who can stop eating all together.
Smoking
Project Officer EPA Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:26 AM
Cigs are drug injection devices that conveys one of the most highly addictive substances known to man into the users blood stream. Collateral damage from ingesting the associated ingredients including tar and other chemicals absolutely negatively effect the users health and that of those who my be near, especially family members and children. Research has established that smoking is responsible for numerous health problems including those associated with the lungs and the circulatory system. So why are we even discussing this...The problems associated with smoking are too numerous to discuss, including but most certainly not limited to the smoke, stale smelly clothes, ashes, and nasty butts everywhere. Don't expect my insurance to pay for removing your left lung, for the chemo, or the bottle of oxygen trailing around behind you. Die on your on time else where...10 minutes at a time for each cig. U smoke, and leave me out of it.....
Smoking Prohibitions
Retired Department of the Air Force Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:49 PM
The prohibitions on smoking will go the way of seat belt use requirements in automobiles and helmet wearing for motorcycle riders. Once thought a right to not use a seat belt of wear a helmet, the issue became one of public health, safety and costs of medical and coroner services at the public's expense. Some people just don't understand the total risks involved. The reason? They're selfish and want to force their bad habits on others. And, they think it's a right. Sorry, it's not a right to inflict harm on others. In another ten years we will look back and see the folly of resisting such a sensible rule for the good of all. Maybe that's why the government banned cocaine use early last century. I'm sure there were a lot of cokeheads that complained then too.
Don't Punish Everyone- Grow Some Balls
Specialist Department of Veterans Affairs Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:18 PM
I am a responsible smoker so let me be. Get a spine and hold the slobs and slackers accountable for taking extended breaks and throwing their butts on the ground. Leave the rest of us alone. I am sick of people discriminating against smokers. You have people who drink too much, eat too much, or whore around too much. I say nobody is perfect. We choose our own bad habits and have to live with whatever comes of it. Leave the responsible people ALONE and worry about your damn self.
Re: Don't Punish Everyone- Grow Some Balls
Customer Rep US Forest Service Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:24 AM
Very well put, I applaud you. NO ONE is perfect so everyone stop bitching about others smoking or what have you and let it alone. People can chose to die however they want, seat belt or no seat belt, helmet or no helmet. Smoke, drink or whatever. It's their life so let it be. It has got to the point that no one has rights. I have had friends and family die who never smoked a day in their life, yet cancer still got them. They didn't pay extra for insurance as who knows whats going to hit you and when. So let it be people and let me smoke and die the way god chooses for me to go, not the way you think I will (from smoking). Dang most foods you eat will get you now also.
Please
Clerk HUD Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:22 PM
Keep your shoes on!
Defending Smoker's Production
Front Line Manager Internal Revenue Service Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:35 PM
There are a lot of comments on here about lost productivity because of smoke breaks. I used to be a smoker who took smoke breaks. And because I was aware of the fact that I took more breaks then some non-smokers, I made sure that I had the most production in my unit as well as the highest quality. Just because someone takes smoke breaks, it does not necessarily mean that they do less work or have poor quality. That is an assumption based on observation of the breaks. While I am not stating that all smokers have the best production, I am stating that some of them do. And before you malign the production of all smokers, you need to have your facts in order.
Well Put
Mr. Patriot Thu Jan 1, 2009 3:29 PM
To: Specialist, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Those like you are a threat to the "G" because you think for yourself and hold yourself accountable. The "G" has shoved so much down our throats in the work environment from the EEO Frankenstein, alternate lifestyles, and religious entitlement and how we old-schoolers must accept the Me, Myself and I attitude. These are all cancers in their own right and can kill you with another type of death just as deadly as cancer, stress and heart problems. A designated smoking area is not too much to have. There should not be any extra breaks for smokers. If people would just worry about themselves and not what other people do that you don’t like. Smokers that are blowing it in your face are one thing but going out and looking for it is not. I’m sure those roles could be applied very easily in the reverse. Once again the “G” always has these safe politically correct polls. What's next to gripe about for 2009 for us who have steady "G" jobs??
Smokers
Accountant USEPA Mon Jan 5, 2009 9:17 AM
Unless you are a smoker, you can not fully understand the need to smoke periodically throughout the day. If count the bad wokers in your office, then separate them by who smokes and who don't, you'll see smoking does not create bad workers. Count the number of times you have personal conversatuons throughout the day. These personal conversations are breaks away from your work even if you are sitting at your desk. These conversations are with co-workers, security, friends and family on cellphones as well as the office telephone at your desk. Some are your personal affairs that need to be handled between 8:00am to 5:00pm such as paying a bill, doctor appointments, teachers at your childs school, etc. All of these incedients are breaks from your actual work.
Going outside to smoke creates more colds and sickness off the job, germs pasted around the office, but no one seems to complain about that. When will the nit picking stop!
Smoke Breaks
Buyer DLA Wed Jan 7, 2009 10:34 AM
I know the smokers always get away with free beraks.. As nobody else who does not smoke, does not take any unoffcial breaks from their work, even when they are stressed out. Examples,They don't step out side for a 5 to 10 minutes to clear their thoughts. Or go to the water cooler, visit a co worker/boss to vent a bit. No, non smokers are always working where they should be and only take official breaks. We can count on the non smokers to be the ultimate worker bee.
smoking in the workplace
Management Assistant DLA Thu Jan 8, 2009 8:43 AM
After watching a loved one die from smoking induced lung cancer, I can't imagine why anyone would do that to themselves or the people they love. But on to the topic at hand: I do sympathize with smokers as I understand it is an addiction, however, the stench is so bad and the proof of the dangers of second hand smoke is irrefutable, that I think it is a responsible employer that protects the rights of the non-smokers to not be exposed.
Smoking
Retired DOL Thu Jan 8, 2009 9:36 AM
I am retired with 38-1/2 yrs service which began in 1967 at the FBI. I did not smoke when I began my Gov. employment, but 95% of my new co-workers did and since you couldn't smoke at you desk in the Justice Bldg. the rest rooms and break areas were in a constant cloud of smoke. I truly believe I would never have started smoking had I not gotten the job I did when I was 18 years old. The smoking cessation help the DOL offered was to count the number of cigs you smoked each day and reduce that by one the next day......and guess what soon you'd be a NON Smoker!!! Ask any smoker. That plan would do it. Why weren't we smart enough to thing of that ourselves!?!?!?! Guess what....I'm still trying to quit!!!!!!!
SMOKING ON GOV PROPERTY
TECH LIBRARIAN D.O.D 309th SPTS/AMARG Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:06 AM
do away with it completely or have smoke box's available to disapate smoke up and away from others...............
Smoker's Rights
Management Analyst Department of Education Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:17 AM
I agree that when there is a law passed regarding obesity in the workplace, then they can ban people from taking a few smoke breaks a day outside. And charge more for insurance? I'm a 60-year-old smoker (and not proud of it) but can beat a 30-year-old non smoking fat person up the steps without huffing and puffing. And smells? I think they should ban the wearing of perfume because I get nausous in my office smelling the mix of strong fragrances. Most offices have microwaves. I get to smell burnt popcorn, fish and other types of noxious odors. Then there's the certain few who do not bathe regularly and I have to hold my breath to walk by. Gimme a break, people, aren't there enough things to worry about? Go to work and be happy you have a job in these rough times.
Banning Smoking is WRONG!
Specialist IRS Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:56 AM
I am a smoker. I don't take extra breaks, but if it is a particularly stressful day, I may take more. But, when I do, I extend my hours - I work more than 40 hours per week, anyway. We can't smoke in buildings, so we are banished to the outside elements. I have respect for non-smokers, so I smoke outside & in designated areas which are NOT by entrances. All we need to do is have the Federal buildings provide a smoking area that is not by the entrance so that others don't have to walk through it or smell it. I don't like to see disgusting rolls of fat on people! AND fat people take extra time to walk (waddle) ANYWHERE, go the the bathroom (we're talking #2 - 2-3x per day @15 min. ea) & then they have to sit for 5 minutes in order to catch their breath. It disgusts me watching them eat & that's inevitable b/c they are ALWAYS eating. Why not ban candy bars, chips, fried foods & ALL fatty foods, too? Like me, if they want it, they'll have to jump thru hoops to get it - that's FAIR!
Re: Banning Smoking is WRONG!
can they take away smokin? little dq Sat Mar 7, 2009 11:46 PM
I'm a smoker. At least you get smoke breakes our rules have changed so much about smokin in the last week where I work. In the begining of the week we were told... you have to clock out to go on brake. Only outside!!! The only people that go outside is the 3 smokers that work there. Then 2 days later we we're told that we were not aloud to smoke on the premmises. Now after 3 days from that rule... we are told there is no more brakes outside. You have to stay inside. that meens no more smoke brakes. Is that agenst the law?
If you ban smoking, you should ban everything else
RA IRS Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:14 AM
If the govt. wants to ban smoking, they'd better be prepared to ban everything else that is "annoying" and "takes away or distracts from work time". All of the federal buildings I know of, you cannot smoke in, or smoke near the entrance - there is a designated spot, so what's the REAL issue? Longer/more breaks? Less time working? If that's the case, then the government better ban: eating outside of designated breaks, gossipers from gossiping, all cell phones during work hours, all radios, headphones or any other kind of music, chewing gum, all people who are perpetually annoying, angry, anxious, depressed or overly happy - or for that matter: ANY emotions b/c emotions distract us from our work, thanking God on govt. time, thinking about anything other than work, and they'd better install a punch clock to make sure that everyone gets to work on time, doesn't leave early, and doesn't go over the 30 min. lunch break (yeah, it's 30 min, NOT 1 hour). Big Brother, here we come...
Third Hand Smoke
IT Specialist NAS Lemoore Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:18 PM
I would like to ask what the general opinion is on Third Hand Smoke...i.e. that smell smokers carry on their clothing after coming back into the office after their smoke break. How does one avoid this....?
is it alowed to ban smoking brakes?
can they take away smokin? employee of little buisness Sat Mar 7, 2009 11:36 PM
I work at a privitly own buisnesses that is part of a bigger buisnesses like dairy queen or mcdonalds... The owner had no problom with smoking until he reopened his store. Then he told us that if you were to go outside for a brake that you have to clock out and be gone a half hour. Then 2 days after he made that rule he changed it to no smoking on the premissis. Not a big deal... But today i went to work and there is a letter for employees that your not alowed to go outside for brakes. everyone must stay in the building for a twenty min. brake. witch is nice cause we don't loose a half hour of pay but no we can't smoke. I just wanna know if that is leagle? can he make it so we can smoke no more? There is only 3 of us that smoke. the other 11 of them don't smoke. Is he braking the law by not alowing us to smoke or am I just whinning about norhin?
Smoking at work
This is getting ridiculous! css Mon Apr 6, 2009 11:36 AM
I am a smoker. I take one break in between the start of my day and lunch, and one break in between lunch and the end of my day. Also, I have a cigarette at lunchtime, but still within my lunch hour. I don't see what the big deal is. When I go out to have a cigarette, it takes about 4 minutes and then I'm back at my desk. By taking that four minute break it is easier for me to get to the things that i need to get done for today. If i didn't go outside and smoke, I would just be sitting there thinking about it and not being focused. Everybody in my workplace gets up and leaves their desk for a few minutes everyday. What's the big deal if I go outside to smoke? I just don't get it.
electronic cigarettes to the rescue!
Program Manager subcontractor Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:09 AM
I agree with the other postings here in that this is not a smoking issue. However, there is a partial solution that would bridge the divide between smokers and non-smokers and breaks...electronic cigarettes.
E-cigs are battery-operated vaporizers that are not part of the smoking ban, making them legal to use almost everywhere. E-cigs are available with or without nicotine.
If e-cigs were allowed in the workplace, the wasted "walk time" to the designated smoking area is eliminated. Also eliminated are myriad health related time and money wasters - doctor visits, insurance premiums, etc.
Most e-cig users can continue working productively while using an e-cigarette.
Managers and supervisors would be wise to consider this option as the tobacco noose continues to tighten.
Try being accountable...
Small agency
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:06 AM
I get really tired of people complaining about how much time smokers take for their breaks and how smokers are lazy and poor performers. If that is the case, as identified by "supervisor with the Navy in Silverdale, WA," than take a personnel action against them! If they aren't performing, put them on a PIP and get them to perform. If they are taking unsanctioned breaks, then charge them with AWOL. My experience has been that some of my BEST performers have been smokers.
And let me warn you nonsmokers who complain about these breaks---as an ex-smoker, if I didn't get a cigarette when I needed one, everyone around me paid for it. So, be careful what you wish for!
Re: Try being accountable...
HR Specialist
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:25 AM
Re: Try being accountable...
USAF
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:41 AM
Re: Try being accountable...
Federal Agency
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:40 AM
USDA, HR Specialist, take your pathetic self to a different door! Oh, and if you took a bath in your perfume or cologne today, stay away from people - they don't want to smell it. And, if you crack your gum when you chew, you annoy me. Maybe gum chewing should be banned next...
Re: Try being accountable...
COE
Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:47 AM
Re: Try being accountable...
The one I work for
Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:09 AM
Next ban up for bid...mouth breathers.
Making the world tolerable through intolerance. One annoying habit at a time. HA!
SMOKE BREAKS -- BOOZE BREAKS?
DCMA
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:20 AM
Well, if smokers need a "break" because they are stressed, how about those who like a visit with "Doctor Jack" when they are stressed? Can they go out and get a shot, too? Also, among annoying habits, how about those windbags that come up in a nearby cubicle and hold a loud, distracting, and extended gab-fest just when I'm trying to compose a complicated report? I was once hooked on smoking, but I realized it was killing me and opted to continue breathing instead of smoking in late 2005.
Ban all of it
HUD
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:31 AM
If a functional alcoholic wanted to take 5 minutes to run down the street and have a shot, he would be put on administrative leave and sent to rehab.
Regardless of whether or not it has any impact on performance, why should one addiction be given preferential treatment over another, or over those who have no addiction whatsoever?
Smoking Ban
DCMA
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:31 AM
I work in a facility where smoking is banned. I have read numereous complaints from others that a smoker gets more breaks than non-smokers. This issue is easily solved by restricting smoking to authorized break times and at lunch. Management places controls on the employees when smoke breaks are authorized and not the employees. Non smokers life isn't fair and smokers you have the right to destroy your health when at home not during duty time. Managers wake up and take control. This is an easy situation to control.
Smokers - Bad for Business
USAF
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:33 AM
All the comments about smoker rights, is B.S., so is giving them there own little special place to smoke. Here is what it comes down to. Smokers spend more time on breaks then employees that do not smoke. So if you smoke - you should get paid for a 6 hour day instead of an 8 hour day and you should lose your lunch break. No matter what agency you work for - it is still a business, if you are not working, you should not get paid. Its that simple.
Re: Smokers - Bad for Business
Federal Agency
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:42 AM
Re: Smokers - Bad for Business
USDA
Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:23 AM
Secondhand Smoke
HHS
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:35 AM
Most people don't know that there is no Constitutional right to smoke. The government should not spend any taxpayer funds to enable smoking. Workers and the public should be protected from secondhand smoke at all entrances. Smokers should also pay a higher fee for their health insurance. Currently, their unhealthful habits are being subsidized by non-smoking employees and all taxpayers. Their secondhand smoke causes non-smokers to incur diseases, illness, and lost workdays.
Smoking ban at the workplace
USGS
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:36 AM
It should be banned completely. I see many employees who are smokers constantly converging outside taking long 'smoking breaks' and many breaks throughout a workday. They spend more time smoking (more like endorsed socializing) than they do working and the supervisors turn a blind eye to it. It's unfair to have the taxpayers pay for lack of productivity.
Give me a break
FAA
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:37 AM
The air we breathe is toxic from the fireplaces, vehicles, etc. The smokers are going to make a diference in the big scheme of things. I agree with the obesity issue because they think they get longer coming back from breaks because they walk slower....Give me a break!
HR Specialist (reply #1)
Defense Agency
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:37 AM
Quote, "And let me warn you nonsmokers who complain about these breaks---as an ex-smoker, if I didn't get a cigarette when I needed one, everyone around me paid for it. So, be careful what you wish for!"
That comment spoke volumes to me about the "me first" attitude of our society as a whole and smokers in particular. It's not enough non-smokers have to dodge a gauntlet of smokers on the way into buildings, nor is it enough smokers show disdain for what is and isn't an approved smoking are. Now we'll have an attitude of, "since I can't have my smoke break, I'll make everyone around me miserable."
How sad!
Re: HR Specialist (reply #1)
DOI
Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:36 PM
Smoking Ban
DOD
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:41 AM
The comments about banning obese people if you ban smoking, is a bit ridiculous. What, do you want people to get yearly physicals to show that their smoking, weight, etc is not contributing to health problems? I will have some smokers who are in good health and some obese people who have overall better health than a thinner person.
I am considered overweight; but my BP is 125/69, sugar, cholesterol, and all other bloodwork is great. I exercise, do yoga, eat fish 2-3 times a week, chicken(very rarely), no red meat, and go on a week cruise every year to unwind from the hectic work schedule I have. It's not just one specific thing that causes the health problems, it's the unhealthly lifestyles people have.
Let smokers be aware of where they smoke in public places,respect non-smokers who can be highly allergic to tobacco products. Let the non-smokers hold their breath and comments as they walk by a cloud of smoke (if they have to do so to get where they are going).
Re: Smoking Ban
DOD
Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:40 AM
Re: Smoking Ban
DoD
Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:30 PM
SMOKERS
VA
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:43 AM
I'm a smoker, and I'll admit it's addictive. But come on we're already outside. I'll bet most people offended drink coffee. Try quitting coffee for one day let alone quit!!
Re: SMOKERS
Admin Support Assistant
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:36 AM
Smoking Ban
VA
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:45 AM
Looks like most comments were one sided. Smokers do have rights too. They should also get extra paid sick days for going outside in all weather "unprotected" to smoke. I don't even smoke in my own home because I have animals but I am still a smoker who has rights too.
Re: Smoking Ban
Admin Support Assistant
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:41 AM
Re: Smoking Ban
HHS
Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:40 AM
Re: Smoking Ban
NFC
Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:00 AM
Smoke Breaks, Health, Smokers' Rights and Festerin
HUD
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:46 AM
There is a bible verse which goes something like quick to find the the splinter in the neighbor's eye while ignoring the tree in one's own eye. The folks who are accusing smokers of taking extra breaks, should ge to work early enough to see the non-smokers who come in at 6:30 the go to breakfast from 6:45 - 7:30 or 7:45, then consistently take 60 - 90 minutes for lunch EVERY day! When the "supervisor" does nothing about it! We are authorized two fifteen minute breaks - one morning and afternoon. Mine are typically less than 10.
I am aware that not all folks smoke, and quite frankly there are times when I do not like the smell myself. So I am quick to excuse myself away from you who do not partake.
Take care of yourself and your house and I will take care of me and mine.,
Smoke Breaks
Department of Homeland Security
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:48 AM
If smokers use their 2-15 minute breaks (in addition to lunch) to go smoke, that's their prerogative. However, they shouldn't be afforded any extra breaks just because they are smokers. Every employee should have the exact same number of breaks - smokers and non-smokers. All the other comments about walking through the smoke outside are just petty gripes.
Re: Smoke Breaks
DOD
Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:40 AM
Tobacco Chewer
Lab Tech
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:49 AM
Don't blow smoke on me and I won't spit on you.
Re: Tobacco Chewer
Small College
Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:39 PM
Re: Tobacco Chewer
DOI
Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:44 PM
I'm shaking in my boots.......probably because I'm laughing so hard.
Re: Tobacco Chewer
DOI
Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:46 PM
Smoking Ban
Dept. of Defense
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:51 AM
I am in total favor of a complete smoking ban. I quit 30 years ago and have not looked back. About ten years ago I submitted a proposal to our Squadron Commander whereby employess that did not smoke would be given an extra 15 minutes on each side of the lunch hour for health breaks. I calculated the average time that person who smokes goes outside to imbinbe and it is easily 15 minutes each hour in some cases and longer in others. That is about two hours before and after lunch that is wasted. I use my lunch hour for exercising and even 30 minutes would make the whole process more enjoyable. It was not even given a fair hearing. The contention that smokers have any rights that are different from non smokers is ludicrous. If I got up and walked around for 15 minutes each hour my boss would have a cow and would probably make a stink about it but let a co-worker go out to smoke and nothing is said.
Re: Smoking Ban
DOD
Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:16 AM
Re: Smoking Ban
Designated Smoking Area
Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:53 PM
Smoker's rights
VA
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:52 AM
When I walk by an obese individual I never recall coughing or having a sore throat later or the effects of the individuals obesity affecting my health! HMMMMM!
Smoking Breaks Survey
DOJ/U.S. Marshals Service
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:57 AM
I'm in agreement with those comments for the ban of smoking in and outside buildings. Why should the federal government subsidize someone's addiction by permitting them extra time for their breaks or space in which to practice their addiction. If anything the government should be more accommodating to assist employees becoming more healthy, which will have benefits in all aspects of work and home life.
smoking
IRS
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:58 AM
Why just ban smoking in the workplace? Why not ban it on federal property altogether? And stop bringing up "smokers rights" in response! In the workplace our rights are limited. After all, it's illegal to keep an open bottle of booze in your desk, and don't alcoholics have rights?
dont forget the history folks
nps
Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:59 AM
ouch! such vast negativity! i smoked for over 20 years, quit for 5, went back for 6 mo and then quit for good. if this country hadn't been heavily pro-smoking for decades we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. Ok, so now public buildings you can't smoke in - they now leave it to the casinos in which my husband works and couldn't quit for good because he's bombarded by it tho he did give it a very good try. All us ex-smokers are usually major naysayers but you have to remember many people just can't quit without a great deal of help and won't unless they really want to in the first place. The tobacco companies really did their job well by creating an incredibly addictive product. We need to help people quit instead of berating them all the time. I support a ban in general but you have to create a positive environment, not a negative one.
Smokers and Breaks
VA
Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:08 AM
Smokers should be allowed to smoke in designated areas or outside as long as they do so in their regularly allowed break or lunch period. No extra time should be allowed to smoke or for any other personal activity during workhours. This includes non emergency personal calls, or personal visits to others in the work areas. The resentment caused by extra breaks is not limited only to smoke breaks.
Re: Smokers and Breaks
Admin Support Assistant
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:30 AM
Smoking Rules
US Fish & Wildlife
Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:11 AM
I have to say I resent the smokers in my office. Besides all the time they send smoking it also becomes a talk session for 15 minutes or more. Some people make up their own rules. Come in late, go out to smoke/talk every hour, take no lunch and then leave early. Is that fair for the rest of us that come in on time, take the required 30 minute lunch by law and leave at the proper time??
The question is, why be a good employee?
Re: Smoking Rules
Federal Agency
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:47 AM
Re: Smoking Rules
NFC
Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:14 AM
Tobacco smoke, obesity, perfume
Army
Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:12 AM
Second hand smoke is almost a deadly as first hand, and I should be protected from it.
Perfume/cologne/"fragrance" is not only an irritant but a allergen, and often a potent. As such it is a health hazard to many people, and they too should be protected from others who can be detected beyond hugging distance.
Food, however, is a necessity, unlike tobacco or perfume. As such, obesity falls into a different category. While obesity should be discouraged, and treated if necessary, it has far deeper roots, some of which are evolutionary. It's just not in the same category, and putting it in the same category as smoking or perfume use is merely a red herring.
Re: Tobacco smoke, obesity, perfume
USAF
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:31 AM
When people wear too much perfume, I can explain to them that it's over the top and they generally cut way back, but smokers have to know they stink and they figure it's their right to smoke so we non-smokers just have to live with it.
If smokers don't care about their health or the concideration of non-smokers, maybe they should concider their vanity as a reason to quit.
Re: Tobacco smoke, obesity, perfume
DOD
Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:21 AM
In many of the offices I have worked, heavily scented hand lotions, perfumes, etc, would call for a quiet request from the boss. We had several people who were allergic and the gal who had lovely, scented, reed-diffusers on her desk needed to graciously accept that she couldn' have them or she would injure her coworker's health.
This actually led to her starting to understand that smoke she brought back in with her caused the same woman to have severe asthma attacks. She hasn't quite stopped smoking but is far more courteous about it.
I think that is the source of the backlash...incredible discourtesy by smokers and their "rights" for so many years have caused the many more non-smokers to demand that the smoker rights stop at their lungs...period.
Smoking
DFAS - Retired
Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:13 AM
Prior to quiting in 1988, I smoked or used two packs a day, thus the ash tray on my desk to full or overflowing and I had a private office. Requiring a smoke to leave the work area or the building is a waste of time since most smokers use the mid morning break to smoke.
Smoke Breaks
HUD
Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:31 AM
If a person chooses to smoke I think it is their right. I also believe that I have the right not to inhale their smoke; however, there are far too many people who take advantage of their smoking priviledges by taking far too many an too long "breaks" to go smoke. It has been my experience that no manager (and I have worked under several in my 20 year career) will take action against them; yet, on the very few occasions that I do take a break it is frowned upon by management. I'm expected to be at my desk to cover the phones and the front door because that is my job, but my present coworker (who has the same job description) is not because "she smokes". I have worked with smokers who have not abused their smoking priviledges and it can be accomplished. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions.
Smoking Band
Dept of AF
Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:34 AM
I do not smoke, but I am an American combat Vet seeing wars from Viet Nam to Iraq. I fought for our freedom & have lost many frends, yet self-rigthous do-gooders demand taking away a smokers freedom too. How much more do we Americans have to surrender. Can't there be peace and let each enjoy there freedoms & happiness without madness and oppression? Enough already! We are our bothers keepers & need to help each other. Surly there are neutral grounds that all can be satisfied without unnecessary controls and demands over another person's life and their right to live. Working towards peace is more serving to society than anger, jelousy and hate. Don't take away individual rights or freedoms! Too many paid the ultimate price with there life for us to be free and have the right to choose.
Re: Smoking Band
USAF
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:40 AM
Re: Smoking Band
HHS
Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:49 AM
smoking ban
DOL/ESA
Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:56 AM
I don't mind if the people in my building smoke in designated areas outside the building. I do mind the following, and will therefore be happy with the total ban:
1) The fact that people ALWAYS smoke outside the designated area so that smoke often drifts into the building lobby. What about "non-smoking area" do you not understand?
2) The cigarette butts that are all over the property, lining the cracks between the pavers on the new plaza. It looks terrible.
Re: smoking ban
DOL
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:47 AM
Smokers should incur add'l health insurance fees
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:57 AM
Since we've determined that smokers and even people exposed to second hand smoke develop lung cancer, it seems only fair that smokers be required to pay an additional health premium. This would cover their claims for lung disease and extended health problems while other co-workers end up covering for them. I hate getting on an elevator with someone who has just come in from smoking. The rules should be enforced by supervisors that smokers get only two 15- minute breaks (one in the AM and on in th e PM). Let the Surgeon General weigh in on this matter and go from there!
Smoking
BLM
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:06 AM
I do not smoke and have never smoked, but I do have other vises that I use for stress. I believe that smokers should have a place to go to smoke because I do think they need a stress release also. I think smokers should be restricted to only one break in the morning and one in the afternoon just like everyone else.
Smoking in the work place
US Army, retired
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:09 AM
During my 36 years of service I saw the change from smoking at your desk to "designated areas". Going outside was inconvinent, it took "time" to walk to the break area, so be it!
The professed Health Nuts (military and civilian) still came to work and spread their hacking flu, some spent HOURS in the lunch room with their friends and griped about the lack of promotions and their bosses.
We often had to work 12+ on and -12 off (for months). As a supervisor I was aware of the productivity, stress and responsibilities of those that worked with me. Overall, we got the job done, the slackers were pretty much ignored...we really did not need them anyway. My regret is that we were unable to boot them then, as it appears the now are deciding the fate of the worker bees.
Our new Commander in Chief will sure find it tough to comply with GSA on this one! Light'em if you gott'em!!
Smoking Breaks
DoD
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:11 AM
Smoking break abuses are NOT a smoking issue! They are a personnel issue that should be dealt with by the employee's supervisor. Taking excessive breaks is a punishable offence, whether the individual is smoking or not! Why blame smokers for management's inability (or lack of backbone) to deal with the offending employee? Why ban smoking (partially) because managers will not manage? Totally banning smoking can only increase the amount of time an employee is away from their desk! Employees taking excessive breaks will still have to be dealt with!
Smoking
SSA
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:19 AM
I just lost a friend who died of lung cancer. He hadn't smoked in 27 years. But, every Friday night he spent 3-4 hours in the confines of a club basement with someone who was a chain smoker. Second-hand smoke seems just as bad as smoking.
smoker breaks
social security adm
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:22 AM
Why don't the union & management allow the smokers to clock out, go smoke, and clock back in when they are ready to go to work. This will not give the smokers the extra benefit of smoke breaks and it would not take away from their right to smoke & read their books & read the newspapers & visit other parts of the building to see their friends & have another smoke. The smokers would now be doing their smoking on their own time and, when they clock back in they'll be ready to work. Some smokers would then be at work for 10 -12 hours because of their smoking, but that was their own choice.
smoking and breaks in general
NYARNG
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:26 AM
One looks for employment, to be paid for the work he or she performs. For us, the rules were simple to understand. Our 8 hour day was divided into two four hour work periiods. Each work period was divided into two parts by a break of 15 minutes and the time for that break was up to the supervision of that facility. Yes there were smokers that took advantage. Smokers were given a 5 minute smoke break every hour which was supposed to be in lue of their regular break. Of course some abided by that rule and some didn't. Some took their regular break along with their smoke break. Others who didn't smoke took up smoking, others would just stand in smoking areas with a cigaret. At times there were more smoking than those who were working.
The rules are black and white, no argument as how or what they mean. How they ae applied is left to the local supervisor. What is lacking is supervision at all levels, and a lot of self respect at the employee level.
Just back...
Federal Agency
Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:57 AM
from my smoke break which took no more than 3 minutes.
This issue has been beaten to death with all the blame placed on incompetent, lazy smokers. While some may be incompetent and lazy, I know for a fact that there are just as many incompetent and lazy non-smokers out there too. Just take a look around you on a given day you will see people chatting with each other, talking on the telephone, surfing the internet, or just plain wasting time. Maybe the issue is the government has way too many employees and there is not enough work to keep everyone busy.
You know the old saying about glass houses...
Look at yourself in the mirror before casting stones and be sure that you are 100% ethical in everything you do at work.
Smoking
DCMA
Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:44 PM
I smoked 3 packs a day until 1993. I watched the sniveling whineybutts constantly crying "just give them their own smoking place where we won't have to smell it". Well , you got what you wanted....from the workspace...to the break room....out of doors....designated smoking areas outside....designated smoking areas away from main thouroughfares....and your still sniveling, whining, and crying because somebody does something you disagree with. Got an idea for you.....this is America, the land of the free....freedom means that I have to listen and read some of the most inane, stupid, comments ever assembled in one place....the idea...go where you'll be appreciated for being against freedom....even when that freedom will eventually contribute to your demise. I'll continue to give you the freedom to whine if you'll give the smokers the freedom to kill themselves. Freedom sometimes means allowing someone to practice something you don't agree with. Quit whining and find a way to do your job..
Ban the Smoking!
DHR- Schofield Barracks
Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:51 PM
One worker at my office who reeks from the smell of tobbacco will come into my area and long after he leaves, the unpleasant odor of his visit lingers. It's absolutely horrible!
Aloha from Hawaii
Re: Ban the Smoking!
Small College
Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:44 PM
Re: Ban the Smoking!
Federal Agency
Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:12 PM
These rules don't apply to you. So why do you bother giving your opinion, and why should we pay attention to what you think?
Smoke Breaks
U.S. Dept of Ed
Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:56 PM
When I was with the FDA, I was forced by my supervisor to train an employee who kept leaving the work site to take multiple 30-minute smoking breaks. This employee, Deborah Kleinfeld, was hired by the FDA after she claimed that she couldn't get promoted at IHS because she wasn't Indian.
Antismoking Hypocricy
Spawar
Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:57 PM
As a nonsmoker, I see nothing wrong with allowing people to have smoke breaks. If it seems that they take too long, remember to include the time they take to get to the smoker's area and maybe a restroom stop. In the meantime, what about all of us taking the time to read through the Fedsmith articles AND the reader's comments. At last count, THIS article has five pages of comments.
Smoke Breaks, Health, Smokers' Rights and Festerin
HUD
Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:19 PM
Beyond the obvious loss in productivity, increased sick time and overall cost to the US Taxpayer, I totally agree with a complete ban on smoking.
When my smoking co-workers come back from their frequent unmonitored breaks, their clothing and breath stinks of cigarettes. Their odor permeates the entire workplace. These carcinogens are now entering into my lungs as 2nd hand smoke.
I have a guy at my job who has eleven children. He is on food stamps and other benefits from New York State. He is always complaining about never having any $$ yet I always see a cigarette in his mouth. Smoking effects many more individuals beyond the specific smoker.
You want to stop smoking on a macro federal level? No smoking breaks at all and raise their monthly medical benefit costs to 25x that of a non-smoker.
Smoking in the workplace
IRS
Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:33 PM
Everyone agrees that smoking should not be allowed inside the building (& maybe even outside the front door). The worst negotiations I had in 25 years of being a steward was when we first had to negotiate a separate smoking room (with smokeeater) , then do away with it when Clinton banned it. I have never seen such venom in the office-both directions-and so little willingness to compromise in not letting smokers get pelted with verbal abuse (some wanted to use real rocks). It's kind of like watching a dog fight (I imagine) where the contest has to result in a total kill. I'm glad I'm retiring next week. I have no faith in mankind.
Re: Smoking in the workplace
DoD
Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 PM
SMOKING VS OBESITY--COME ON!
VA
Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:18 PM
I fail to see the correlation between smoking and obesity as they affect those around us. My being fat doesn't have the effect on those around me like smoking would.
In one sense, though, I see what they are saying. I, too, am against goverment intervention in one's own health care. However, when it comes to smoking, it does have an ill effect on those around you. Fat doesn't seep from one person to another!
smoking
VA
Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:41 PM
What smokers do not want to admit is that their habit hurts the health and welfare of non-smokers, not just themselves. We would not allow someone to shoot a gun at people just because he has the right to own a gun, so we shoul not allow people to smoke anywhere that smoke might be breathed by someone else.
Re: smoking
USAF DOD
Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:23 AM
Equating guns to smoking is about as asinine as equating your flatulence to global warming
Addictions impact upon the workspace
DOD
Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:34 PM
So the smokers hung out front of the Thurman Building while the non-smokers hung out at each other's cubicles smearing themselves with perfume and griping about their lousy jobs.
I am allergic to both, as were many other people in Southern Command, but the smokers were removed from my required space and the perfumes were not.
The best way to survive is to smear the back of your hands with Vick's Vapo Rub and try to keep your air passages clear. Then everybody can gripe about the smell of Vick's.
Private industry requires you to stay put, smell clean, no smoke, no perfume.
Get over it, being a federal employee does not bestow special rights.
non-smoking areas
COE
Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:43 AM
Our building has "no smoking" signs posted around the entrances, yet smokers stand in front of the signs and smoke, and nobody enforces the policy. They even stand inside the revolving doors to smoke. As someone else mentioned, perfume is just as bad and should also be banned as it causes health problems for those that are allergic and sensitive.
smoking ban
va
Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:03 AM
Smokers need to be responsible about where they drop their butts and smoking in only designated areas. I am a smoker and adhere to the rules at my agency, 25 feet from any doorway and to use butt cans. I understand how non-smokers or reformed smokers feel, we are allowed to go outside on our breaks and lunchtime to smoke, don't you get breaks and lunches? What's your problem?
Smoke Breaks
Agriculture
Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:31 AM
The biggest complaints are about the amount of time wasted by smokers. At my former agency that was a concern, so I did a small study; The people who complain the loudest about the time wasted are, by and large, more wastreful with their time. They "visit" with other employees; they spend inordinate amounts of time in the ladies and men's rooms; they spend agreat deal of time on personal phone calls, whether on a cell phone in the hallway or bathroom, or on their Govt phone. In the end , it about evens out, altho there are always the abusers. That's where good management comes in...... They can curb abuses by all.
Smoker's Rights
USDA Forest Service
Fri Dec 26, 2008 7:30 PM
I smoked many years ago so empathize with smokers. I don't want to inhale the smoke so am grateful that they take it outside. The few seconds I have to hold my breath walking past the smoker's area is a small price to pay for clean air at my desk.
Yes, they take a lot of time away from their desks but so do so many "talkers" in the office who stand around the first hour of every day catching up on office gossip or chatting on the telephone repeatedly throughout the day. Bottom line, supervisors need to ensure that ALL employees are contributing their fair share of the workload (no small task) rather than singling out only one section of the problem. No smokers should not be banned from smoking in areas outside Federal buildings.
Smoking Ban
USAF
Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:14 PM
I did not smoke until I was sent to Vietnam in 1970. The GOVERNMENT gave me cigarettes to smoke in our rations packs.
I have no problem with not smoking in buildings or any type.
Home, public, government.
I smoke outside at all three. I don't blow smoke in peoples faces, I will even move downwind from someone so the smoke doesn't blow on them.
I know smoking is bad. It is an addiction. As stated before it was a habit the GOVERNMENT gave me and got me started on.
Leave me alone. Or pay all costs for me to stop and pay for any medical problems that the GOVERNMENT caused me to have. And I'm not talking about the insurance that I have to pay for regardless of the GOVERNMENT claims they pay for.
PROUD VIETNAM VET. 1969-1971.
Smokers
Western Area Power Administration
Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:33 PM
I am a former smoker who still gets upset when others decide that the smoker is a bad guy. Maybe instead of complaining we need to try and help them quit. Let's take the high road instead of the low one. Everyone just ends up angry and nothing is accomplished by judging another's habits.
Of course, I do remember others suggesting I needed to quit and all it accomplished was making me think of all the things I could've suggested to them to quit. Just because someone doesn't smoke doesn't mean they are a more dedicated worker. Let us continue to move forward with our ability to think positive. From the comments I read I could feel the anger.
I wish for all smokers to someday find the way they need to quit. Nagging and telling them they have to quit will accomplish nothing but frustration and resentment. Agencies have figured out a lot tougher problems. Let's put on those thinking caps.
Just don't bother me!
Federal Agency
Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:28 PM
As long as I can do my work without having to breath in someone's smoke, I'm good. I have numerous lung ailments, so when I had to work next to someone smoking, I was often out sick. However, now that they don't bother me at my desk, I try not to bother them at their designated smoking areas. Why can't we just leave it like that?
I don't feel like entering into a debate about health care costs, or what they are doing to themselves. As long as they aren't doing it to me, who cares? I have gone over two years since I have taken any Sick Leave for reasons other than doctor visits. I'm relatively healthy. That's the important thing.
SMOKING BAN AT WORKPLACE
DHUD
Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:55 PM
there should be designated smoking areas. most complaints i hear are from ex-smokers. there are non-smokers that stay on the phone all day, except for breaks, talking to family and friends ,while others are trying to work, this is stressful. employees that stands in the isles talking/ laughing loud, while others are still trying to work, this is stressful. employees that takes long lunch breaks, shopping. nothing is said; no leave slips submitted, this is stressful. the all day coffee drinkers with the coffee breath, the tobacco chewing employees, with tobacoo breath, the popping of gum all day, the hair sprayers, the loud music, talk shows and yes, the smokers with the smoking breath, these are all stressful. i want neither in my face, but we must work together for a common cause. it is not up to me to take their habits away. there is no way to please all, just bare with it. your own habits may send people running, screaming in search of shot of liquor or a smoke, ok
Ban on Smoking
DoD
Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:51 PM
I smoked for years, and after 3 attempts, have managed to stay smoke free. I am not one of those born again non-smokers and I think that smokers are being discriminated against and for all the whiners out there that complain about smokers getting too many breaks, oh my gosh - get a life! Are you at your desk when your duty hours begin? Do you stay on the phone or in the hallways taling for extended amounts of time? Get over it, find a different entrance to walk thru and move along!
Smoking law
The one I work for
Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:46 AM
I really have no sympathy for smokers. I don't care what laws are passed one way or the other, but I do hate having to pass by these people and their toxic emissions. Yes, I have to breathe in toxins all day from other sources, but if one can be reduced or eliminated, I'm all for it.
However, saying that if you ban smoking you should ban obesity, is preposterous! Obese people (usually) don't take a break every hour to go eat...and they're not standing there shoving their food down other people's throats, and they don't need special places to go eat, etc. etc. This is an apples to oranges comparison. The only similarity is the health issue. (No, I'm not obese.)
I'll smile happily if they ban smoking...at least until I have to work with a smoking boss who becomes a total bear to work with because s/he is going through withdrawals. But then, instead of blaming the law, I'll blame my stupid boss for not quitting.
Re: Smoking law
DOD
Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:05 AM
Re: Smoking law
USDA
Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:20 AM
I know more overweight/obese people that are super performers, go over and above to get the job done well. This is both in private sector and fed employees. And they do not stuff their faces and talk with their mouths full in anyone's faces. (I know *normal sized* people that do that)
Breaks
usace finance center
Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:59 AM
There is more nonsmokers stand around talking in the office, and on the phones using more time then most smokers do taking their smoke breaks. Being a nonsmoker I see this.
Smokers
FSIS
Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:09 AM
Let's get real. I see alot of comments stating that smokers should be docked hours when they go out to have an occasional smoke. If that is the case for all you non-smokers, everyones hours should be docked for all the time spent during our coffee breaks, bathroom breaks, personal phone calls, surfing the web and even for the time spent typing comments in FedSmith. I do not know one person who spents their 8 hours on the clock actually working the total 8 hours. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone.
smoke breaks
Dept. of Homeland Security
Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:37 AM
I am a smoker, I come in 45 minutes early and start work. I go out for a cigarette 2Xs a day. Each break lasts 7 minutes (I time myself). I stay away from the door area and stand closer to the street. I don't like the smell of anothers cigarette and I cannot blame a non smoker for not wanting it in their face and in their space. Smokers need to be more considerate of others. Would you like to smell wood burning? To non smokers, the smoke could feel like something burning in their nose, it could cause an asthma attack and it makes their clothes smell as bad as ours. Be considerate and if you need to break for a cigarette, come in early and make up the time so you are not "stealing" time from the government and having the non smokers feel like you are getting extra breaks. Limit yourself - you don't need a cigarette every hour.
Banning Smoking
DoD
Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:41 AM
Why is there so much pettiness in the workplace. We should be grateful that we have jobs, period. It is always about "me. I don't get the same breaks." Oh please! Smokers didn't think "Oh I will smoke so I can have a more breaks than the other workers." We are selfish enough without worrying what the other person is getting away with. And, NO, I am not a smoker or ever was one. Be happy that we have a Federal job where we have a lot of benefits.
Smoking
IRS
Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:46 AM
As your sample of comments about smoking demonstrates, these non-smokers are similar to zealots. There is no way but thier way, an listening is not in thier skill set. Try standing on the corner of an intersection. You will get more polution there in 5 minutes than any other place you can think of. Of course auto polution is socialy acceptable.
Smogs
Patriot
Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:28 AM
The "G" should not tolerate any extra breaks for smoking other than the ones already established for each respective Agency. As a former smoker it's real tough to quit. The "G" should consider offering smoking cessation programs for those who want it and when the employee’s insurance doesn‘t cover it. For those that want to smoke that is your right but you should not be entitled to get extra "G" time to do it. Smoke on your scheduled break. As well, non-smokers should not have to be subjected to the second-hand smoke. As much as I enjoyed a smog they’re real bad as we all know. There should be designated smoking areas for now. I flew through Japan this year and in their airport there was a room set aside with a strong ventilation system and NORAD type doors for smokers. You could not smell any smoke leakage even when people were going in and out.
Stop Your Whining
Cabinet Department
Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:39 AM
Smoking is bad for your health, your family's health, innocent bystanders' health, even out of doors. You can't bring alcohol into a Federal building, why should you be able to smoke? Agencies should offer free smoking cessation programs. Smokers should either take advantage and quit, or put up with the hardship of going outdoors in the cold and rain, with only the same breaks available to non-smokers. And no complaining on government time. Or to me, I don't want to hear it. I once smoked and quit, you can, and should, too.
Smoke Breaks, Health,...
VA Medical Center, Dayton OHIO
Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:34 AM
Nothing wrong with moving smokers out of federal buildings. Smokers do take more "breaks" than non-somkers and that is unfair. Have them clock in and out when they leave their work areas for non-work and charge them leave if their time is more than their allotted break time. If they do not have the leave, monetary compensation to the employer is always an opiton. When it starts negatively affecting their pockets, they might be willing to reconsider where and how often they need to feed their habits.
Re: Smoke Breaks, Health,...
Federal Reserve Bank
Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:07 PM
Don't discriminate against a smoker!
SSA
Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:58 AM
I do not agree that smokers are poor performers. I smoke and am a hard worker and do not take extra breaks every chance I get to get my fix! I am entitled to one morning break, 1/2 lunch, and one break in the afternoon. That is when I smoke not any more not any less! I'm offended that people will say that I'm lazy, poor performer, not concerned of others, when not everyone is that way; I'm not. I do not smoke around people who are non-smokers, if they choose to stand by me, that's on them. I do not smoke in doorways or entrances, I tend to think of others who do not smoke, but as another person put it, what I do with my body and health is my business. I do not judge others who may drink on or on the job, (discreetley or on lunch breaks), over eat on the job, (have piles of food in their drawer, desk, etc.), or complain of strong body orders that I have to put up with because I work with someone who doens't have good hygene. I don't complain on people's bad habits!
Upgrade ventilation systems in the offices
DOD USMC MCTSSA
Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:54 AM
I am not a smoker, but do not wish to control co-workers.
Improve the ventilation systems in the offices where the smoking takes place.
Until "smoking" is illegal and banned from the market, this is a right for people who wish to smoke.
PROTECT OUR RIGHTS!
Smoking in the Work Place
TACOM
Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:16 PM
It wouldn't bother me a bit if all public places and public access were completely off limits to smoking. In a free society, the majority rules. 67% to 33% is a majority. Places I like to enjoy, having a beverage at a pub, restaurant, bowling, casinos are all fun places to go. But the smoke is just beyond the enjoyment. And my clothes stink and must be changed as soon as I can. Is this a free society? Yeah, I have the choice to stay home, but is that what businesses want? Come on smokers, if you can't quit and you know you want to, then at least cut back to 2 15 minute breaks a day and smoke in your car. Hopefully you are not smoking in your homes with kids around.
Banning Smoking in the workplace
National Labor Relations Board Judges
Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:38 PM
As an asthmatic it is like being punched in the lungs to walk through a cloud of smoke in front of the doors but usually avoid it. All of our smokers have quit since smoking in public places has been banned in California and the smokers had to go outside and away from the building. I greatly appreciate that the ban has helped and encouraged so many to quit smoking. There are patches that can be used when smoke breaks are unfeasable or limited to regular break times. Smokers are entitled to extra breaks in any of the Regulations that I have read so why are they getting them?
Re: Banning Smoking in the workplace
US Forest Service
Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:53 AM
We are all human and we all have rights. I won't take away yours so don't take away mine. If smokers are getting more time in smoking then that is their supervisors fault for letting them. I only take my normal breaks and I do smoke less, but at least I'm able to if I want to.
I hate the overbearing smell of some perfumes and colognes but can't say anything because it is offensive and they have rights. I also can't say anything to the obese people who smell or the ones who don't shower daily and smell horrid, I can't offend them because it's their rights. Geesh people get a grip. Leave smokers alone. I leave you alon
Smoking/Tabacco Use
USDA
Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:33 AM
Let's cover the entire issue -- What about "tobacco" use? It is disgusting when they come into your workspace area, and you have to smell/breathe in the cigarette smoke that has settled in their hair and clothing. It is suffocating. It is even more disgusting when you walk into areas within the office and find cups or bottles with spit from chewing tobacco; or when you enter the kitchen area and find that they have spit their tobacco in the sink. It (smoking and non-smoking tobacco) should be banned from within, and within a certain area outside of, the workspace. What's sad is that the ban is not going to work if it is not enforced and adhered too by the supervisors and the rest of those up-the-ladder. Tobacco users seem to get more privileges than non-tobacco users; i.e., allowed to chew tobacco within the office; allowed to use tobacco in the GSA (Government issued) vehicles; and if you are a smoker you are not questioned when you take 4 or 5 breaks a day to smoke. As one gentlemen put it, “if you want to reach me call my cell phone, you won’t be able to reach me on my desk phone, I’ll be outside polluting my lungs.” I write this as I sit at my desk with two smokers just outside my window.
SMOKING
NAWCADLKE
Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:08 AM
Instead of torturing smokers who have an addiction to a substance authorized, and subsidized by tax dollars wouldn't it be prudent to ban tobacco production and sales therby reducing tax subsidies and the need for all these riduculous laws??
Get Real!
Department of Veterans Affairs
Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:41 AM
I will be sitting in my car smoking on my well-deserved breaks and just try and stop me!
What about all the fatty's who overuse their break time grazing on food in the break room? No body stops them from their self-destructive behavior.
I do not smoke in front of the buildings and I am respectful of others plus I barely use my whole break so back off!
So you are going to ban smoking at the VA? What about the Veterans????? What a slap in their face
Re: Get Real!
USDA
Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:52 AM
Smoking
EPA
Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:26 AM
Cigs are drug injection devices that conveys one of the most highly addictive substances known to man into the users blood stream. Collateral damage from ingesting the associated ingredients including tar and other chemicals absolutely negatively effect the users health and that of those who my be near, especially family members and children. Research has established that smoking is responsible for numerous health problems including those associated with the lungs and the circulatory system. So why are we even discussing this...The problems associated with smoking are too numerous to discuss, including but most certainly not limited to the smoke, stale smelly clothes, ashes, and nasty butts everywhere. Don't expect my insurance to pay for removing your left lung, for the chemo, or the bottle of oxygen trailing around behind you. Die on your on time else where...10 minutes at a time for each cig. U smoke, and leave me out of it.....
Smoking Prohibitions
Department of the Air Force
Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:49 PM
The prohibitions on smoking will go the way of seat belt use requirements in automobiles and helmet wearing for motorcycle riders. Once thought a right to not use a seat belt of wear a helmet, the issue became one of public health, safety and costs of medical and coroner services at the public's expense. Some people just don't understand the total risks involved. The reason? They're selfish and want to force their bad habits on others. And, they think it's a right. Sorry, it's not a right to inflict harm on others. In another ten years we will look back and see the folly of resisting such a sensible rule for the good of all. Maybe that's why the government banned cocaine use early last century. I'm sure there were a lot of cokeheads that complained then too.
Don't Punish Everyone- Grow Some Balls
Department of Veterans Affairs
Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:18 PM
I am a responsible smoker so let me be. Get a spine and hold the slobs and slackers accountable for taking extended breaks and throwing their butts on the ground. Leave the rest of us alone. I am sick of people discriminating against smokers. You have people who drink too much, eat too much, or whore around too much. I say nobody is perfect. We choose our own bad habits and have to live with whatever comes of it. Leave the responsible people ALONE and worry about your damn self.
Re: Don't Punish Everyone- Grow Some Balls
US Forest Service
Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:24 AM
Please
HUD
Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:22 PM
Keep your shoes on!
Defending Smoker's Production
Internal Revenue Service
Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:35 PM
There are a lot of comments on here about lost productivity because of smoke breaks. I used to be a smoker who took smoke breaks. And because I was aware of the fact that I took more breaks then some non-smokers, I made sure that I had the most production in my unit as well as the highest quality. Just because someone takes smoke breaks, it does not necessarily mean that they do less work or have poor quality. That is an assumption based on observation of the breaks. While I am not stating that all smokers have the best production, I am stating that some of them do. And before you malign the production of all smokers, you need to have your facts in order.
Well Put
Patriot
Thu Jan 1, 2009 3:29 PM
To: Specialist, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Those like you are a threat to the "G" because you think for yourself and hold yourself accountable. The "G" has shoved so much down our throats in the work environment from the EEO Frankenstein, alternate lifestyles, and religious entitlement and how we old-schoolers must accept the Me, Myself and I attitude. These are all cancers in their own right and can kill you with another type of death just as deadly as cancer, stress and heart problems. A designated smoking area is not too much to have. There should not be any extra breaks for smokers. If people would just worry about themselves and not what other people do that you don’t like. Smokers that are blowing it in your face are one thing but going out and looking for it is not. I’m sure those roles could be applied very easily in the reverse. Once again the “G” always has these safe politically correct polls. What's next to gripe about for 2009 for us who have steady "G" jobs??
Smokers
USEPA
Mon Jan 5, 2009 9:17 AM
Unless you are a smoker, you can not fully understand the need to smoke periodically throughout the day. If count the bad wokers in your office, then separate them by who smokes and who don't, you'll see smoking does not create bad workers. Count the number of times you have personal conversatuons throughout the day. These personal conversations are breaks away from your work even if you are sitting at your desk. These conversations are with co-workers, security, friends and family on cellphones as well as the office telephone at your desk. Some are your personal affairs that need to be handled between 8:00am to 5:00pm such as paying a bill, doctor appointments, teachers at your childs school, etc. All of these incedients are breaks from your actual work.
Going outside to smoke creates more colds and sickness off the job, germs pasted around the office, but no one seems to complain about that. When will the nit picking stop!
Smoke Breaks
DLA
Wed Jan 7, 2009 10:34 AM
I know the smokers always get away with free beraks.. As nobody else who does not smoke, does not take any unoffcial breaks from their work, even when they are stressed out. Examples,They don't step out side for a 5 to 10 minutes to clear their thoughts. Or go to the water cooler, visit a co worker/boss to vent a bit. No, non smokers are always working where they should be and only take official breaks. We can count on the non smokers to be the ultimate worker bee.
smoking in the workplace
DLA
Thu Jan 8, 2009 8:43 AM
After watching a loved one die from smoking induced lung cancer, I can't imagine why anyone would do that to themselves or the people they love. But on to the topic at hand: I do sympathize with smokers as I understand it is an addiction, however, the stench is so bad and the proof of the dangers of second hand smoke is irrefutable, that I think it is a responsible employer that protects the rights of the non-smokers to not be exposed.
Smoking
DOL
Thu Jan 8, 2009 9:36 AM
I am retired with 38-1/2 yrs service which began in 1967 at the FBI. I did not smoke when I began my Gov. employment, but 95% of my new co-workers did and since you couldn't smoke at you desk in the Justice Bldg. the rest rooms and break areas were in a constant cloud of smoke. I truly believe I would never have started smoking had I not gotten the job I did when I was 18 years old. The smoking cessation help the DOL offered was to count the number of cigs you smoked each day and reduce that by one the next day......and guess what soon you'd be a NON Smoker!!! Ask any smoker. That plan would do it. Why weren't we smart enough to thing of that ourselves!?!?!?! Guess what....I'm still trying to quit!!!!!!!
SMOKING ON GOV PROPERTY
D.O.D 309th SPTS/AMARG
Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:06 AM
do away with it completely or have smoke box's available to disapate smoke up and away from others...............
Smoker's Rights
Department of Education
Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:17 AM
I agree that when there is a law passed regarding obesity in the workplace, then they can ban people from taking a few smoke breaks a day outside. And charge more for insurance? I'm a 60-year-old smoker (and not proud of it) but can beat a 30-year-old non smoking fat person up the steps without huffing and puffing. And smells? I think they should ban the wearing of perfume because I get nausous in my office smelling the mix of strong fragrances. Most offices have microwaves. I get to smell burnt popcorn, fish and other types of noxious odors. Then there's the certain few who do not bathe regularly and I have to hold my breath to walk by. Gimme a break, people, aren't there enough things to worry about? Go to work and be happy you have a job in these rough times.
Banning Smoking is WRONG!
IRS
Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:56 AM
I am a smoker. I don't take extra breaks, but if it is a particularly stressful day, I may take more. But, when I do, I extend my hours - I work more than 40 hours per week, anyway. We can't smoke in buildings, so we are banished to the outside elements. I have respect for non-smokers, so I smoke outside & in designated areas which are NOT by entrances. All we need to do is have the Federal buildings provide a smoking area that is not by the entrance so that others don't have to walk through it or smell it. I don't like to see disgusting rolls of fat on people! AND fat people take extra time to walk (waddle) ANYWHERE, go the the bathroom (we're talking #2 - 2-3x per day @15 min. ea) & then they have to sit for 5 minutes in order to catch their breath. It disgusts me watching them eat & that's inevitable b/c they are ALWAYS eating. Why not ban candy bars, chips, fried foods & ALL fatty foods, too? Like me, if they want it, they'll have to jump thru hoops to get it - that's FAIR!
Re: Banning Smoking is WRONG!
little dq
Sat Mar 7, 2009 11:46 PM
If you ban smoking, you should ban everything else
IRS
Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:14 AM
If the govt. wants to ban smoking, they'd better be prepared to ban everything else that is "annoying" and "takes away or distracts from work time". All of the federal buildings I know of, you cannot smoke in, or smoke near the entrance - there is a designated spot, so what's the REAL issue? Longer/more breaks? Less time working? If that's the case, then the government better ban: eating outside of designated breaks, gossipers from gossiping, all cell phones during work hours, all radios, headphones or any other kind of music, chewing gum, all people who are perpetually annoying, angry, anxious, depressed or overly happy - or for that matter: ANY emotions b/c emotions distract us from our work, thanking God on govt. time, thinking about anything other than work, and they'd better install a punch clock to make sure that everyone gets to work on time, doesn't leave early, and doesn't go over the 30 min. lunch break (yeah, it's 30 min, NOT 1 hour). Big Brother, here we come...
Third Hand Smoke
NAS Lemoore
Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:18 PM
I would like to ask what the general opinion is on Third Hand Smoke...i.e. that smell smokers carry on their clothing after coming back into the office after their smoke break. How does one avoid this....?
is it alowed to ban smoking brakes?
employee of little buisness
Sat Mar 7, 2009 11:36 PM
I work at a privitly own buisnesses that is part of a bigger buisnesses like dairy queen or mcdonalds... The owner had no problom with smoking until he reopened his store. Then he told us that if you were to go outside for a brake that you have to clock out and be gone a half hour. Then 2 days after he made that rule he changed it to no smoking on the premissis. Not a big deal... But today i went to work and there is a letter for employees that your not alowed to go outside for brakes. everyone must stay in the building for a twenty min. brake. witch is nice cause we don't loose a half hour of pay but no we can't smoke. I just wanna know if that is leagle? can he make it so we can smoke no more? There is only 3 of us that smoke. the other 11 of them don't smoke. Is he braking the law by not alowing us to smoke or am I just whinning about norhin?
Smoking at work
css
Mon Apr 6, 2009 11:36 AM
I am a smoker. I take one break in between the start of my day and lunch, and one break in between lunch and the end of my day. Also, I have a cigarette at lunchtime, but still within my lunch hour. I don't see what the big deal is. When I go out to have a cigarette, it takes about 4 minutes and then I'm back at my desk. By taking that four minute break it is easier for me to get to the things that i need to get done for today. If i didn't go outside and smoke, I would just be sitting there thinking about it and not being focused. Everybody in my workplace gets up and leaves their desk for a few minutes everyday. What's the big deal if I go outside to smoke? I just don't get it.
electronic cigarettes to the rescue!
subcontractor
Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:09 AM
I agree with the other postings here in that this is not a smoking issue. However, there is a partial solution that would bridge the divide between smokers and non-smokers and breaks...electronic cigarettes.
E-cigs are battery-operated vaporizers that are not part of the smoking ban, making them legal to use almost everywhere. E-cigs are available with or without nicotine.
If e-cigs were allowed in the workplace, the wasted "walk time" to the designated smoking area is eliminated. Also eliminated are myriad health related time and money wasters - doctor visits, insurance premiums, etc.
Most e-cig users can continue working productively while using an e-cigarette.
Managers and supervisors would be wise to consider this option as the tobacco noose continues to tighten.